AN ANSWER TO Mr. George Walkers VINDICATION, OR RATHER FRESH ACCUSATION:  
Wherein he chargeth Mr. Wotton (besides his former foul aspersions of Heresy and Blasphemy) with Arianism; Mr. Gataker with Socinianism; Dr. Gouge, and Mr. Downham, with a false Attestation; Dr. Bailiff, and Mr. Stock, with Self-condemnation; All the eight Ministers employed in the business between himself and Mr. Wotton, with Partiality and Unjust judgement.  
Upon occasion of a Relation concerning that business, written by the said Thomas Gataker; and by him now again avowed.  
Wherein the said M. Walkers Vindication is in many things showed to be An Untrue Relation.  
LONDON, Printed by E. G. for F. Clifton, in New-fish-street. 1642.   

Some few things to be supplied or amended.  
PAg. 2. after line 13. ad, for words spoken of a dead man, himself being. p. 5. l. 16. read, hath at any time ex. p. 6. l. 28. pressure. p. 14. l. 27. he then did, p. 16. l. 28. wrote. p. 38. l. 18. crave leave of. p. 42. l. 14. put in the margin against pointing. See Cameron Myrothec. p. 25. p. 53 marg put out, * Ibid. p. 9●. l. 32. read have past. p 98. l. 26 sift q. p 115. l. 28. Post script. p. 119. l. 3. he deems.   

HAd M. Walker either dealt more fairly at first, with his Christian brother and fellow-Minister of Christ, M. A. Wotton; or upon second thoughts (
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which are wont to be the wiser) better considered of what before he had unadvisedly attempted; he had therein peradventure in part at least, either saved or salved his own credit: sure I am, he had eased me of some labour, that I had little lust unto. He traduced M. Wotton in the Pulpit as a vile heretic, while he lived, what time he knew Master Wotton's tongue, through the iniquity of the times, to be so 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact. ep. 34.  tied up, that he could not in public plead his own cause. Long after his decease he reneweth his revile of him, and brandeth him again for the like in print; when being hence translated, he cannot now either in public or in private personally appear for himself. A true relation of the carriage of the main matter in controversy between them, in a meeting of M. Walkers own procuring, wherein M. Wotton was acquitted, being hereupon published; he proceedeth, after his wont guise, in violent and virulent manner, not only to charge him, as before, with heresy and blasphemy in the doctrine of justification, but (yet further to express his extreme malice and rancour against him) 
c Vindica●. p. 34.  with the denial of the eternal Deity of Christ; how sound, yea or seemingly, for any show or shadow of reason, let any intelligent Reader judge. And over and besides that, (hoping thereby to help himself, where he sticketh fast in the mire) he sticketh not to 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nicet. in Andron. l. 1. c. 6.  cast foul aspersions upon all those that had any hand in that hearing, not sparing them therein whom himself had made choice of.  
His Vindication (as he termeth it) he beginneth with a preamble, consisting of two parts.  
In the former whereof, he complaineth grievously of me, and 
e Vindic. p. 1.  chargeth me with breach of piety and charity, and defect of humanity and common honesty, in labouring to set upon him foul brands of the like nature, being a Minister yet living in God's Church; and in adding thereby affliction to him, who hath suffered persecution and bonds for the truth's sake.  
Which passage, when I read, minded me of the Italian professor of the civil-law at Oxford, who having in some things carried himself, neither so religiously, nor so respectively towards divers worthy Divines, as had been to be wished; and being therefore by Doctor Rainolds in a private Letter freely told of it, and withal admonished 
f Ut in eyes duarum rerum majorem babeas rationem, pietatis & modestiae. 10. Rainold. ad Alb. Gentil. ep. 1.  to have more regard of piety and modesty in his writings for time to come, then in some formerly he had showed; in way of answer to his Letter, taketh on and stormeth not a little against that mirror as well of modesty as of learning, as 
g Quod me modestiae laesae facis tu reum,— non vides te cum eo sic agere imperiosè, qui Papae imperium contemp●it, & exulare patriâ potuit & universo regno papali? Alb. Gentilis all 〈◊〉. Rainold. ep. 2.  having done him no small wrong, in taking upon him so to check and control him, who had left his own country for his conscience, and was for Religion sake content to live as an exile: though mean while, it may be, enjoying as plentiful an estate here, as ever he had, or might have attained, had he stayed still where before he was.  
But to come more directly to M. Walkers exceptions against me, or prescriptions rather for himself, as a sacred person, or a Sanctuary man; and not therefore to be so dealt with, as I have herein dealt with him; and to discuss them briefly apart. I suppose a little self-love, and selfe-respect proceeding from it, had 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plut. de amie. & adul. & de util. ex inimic. ex Platone de leg. lib. 5.  drawn a film over M. Walkers eyesight, or cast a mist at least before his eyes, when he entered these pleas; that kept him from considering what the party was whom himself had so despitefully dealt with.  
For first, is M. Walker a Minister of God's Word? and was not M. Wotton the same? and that peradventure nothing inferior to M. Walker in aught; however M. Walker may please to esteem or deem of him. 
i Rom. 14. 4.  At whose doom yet, well it is that he neither stands nor falls.  
Secondly, as concerning survivorship, I have ever held it, and so still shall, having 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Moschio. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dionys. trag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Archiloch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euripi●. Antigon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem Phaeniss. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sophocl. Ajac. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregor. Stasim. in carm. Scholar ad illud Aristoph. Paco. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et Suidas. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hinc diverbia illa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aristoph. Avib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Soph. Ajac. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Laert. Menedemm. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lucian. de sect. Et vulgar illud, De mor●…is nil nisi bonum. Quod 〈◊〉 Solonis lege tractum est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plut. Sol. è Demosth. in Leptin. et in Baeot. Et Chilo Sparta. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Laert.  votes therein with me, I am sure, not a few, until M. Walker shall be able to convince me of error in it; that it is a worse matter to traduce the dead, than the living. Since that the one may, the other cannot now make apology for himself. Besides that it is generally held an argument of 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P ato politic. l. 5 Ael●aao Sopb●stae, qui in lmp●ratorem defu●ctum Stylum strinxe▪ rat, Phil●stratus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hinc Antholog. l. 1, c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Audet vel lepus exanimi ●●sultare lconi. Hectorique jacenti insultat Danaûm ignavissimus quisque Iliad. 〈◊〉. Et Quamlibet ignavi praecipitata premunt. Naso trist. lib. 3. eleg. 11. Nec Plancus illepidè, eum diceretur Asini●s Pollio orationes in eum parare, quae post mortem P▪ anci ederentur, ne respondere posset, cum mortuis non nisi larvas luctari: quo apud eruditos nihil impudentius judicatur. Plin. praefat. Hist. nat. Itaque Maro AEn. l. 11. Nullum cum victis certamen & aethere cassis. Dost, esse oportet. Seru.  no ingenuous disposition, to insult over, or dealer igorously with the deceased. And it may well be questioned whether an injury done to a Saint in Heaven, have not the greater guilt, in regard o● his present estate. Sure I am, that against those of the Romish party, 
m See Pet. Moulins of the Eucharist. chap. 13.  our Writers use it as an argument, and 
n Hebr. 12. 25.  the Apostle may well seem to add strength thereunto, that it is a greater wrong to offer any indignity to Christ's body now glorified in Heaven, than it had been to do the like unto him then, when in the state of humiliation he conversed with men here on earth. Nor see I ought, why it may not hold as well in the other limbs, as in the head; that the greater sin it is to offer any wrong or contumely to them, the more highly they are now honoured and advanced by God. And what greater wrong or contumely can be done to them, then to blast their reputations, to charge them with inexpiable crimes, to damn them to Hell, that now reign with God in Heaven? So 
o Terra novissimè complex● gremio, tum maximè ut mater operiens, nullo magis Sacramento, quam quod nos quoque sacros facit. Pl●…. Hist. Nat. l. 2. c. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pl●t. de ●olon. leg.  sacred hath the condition of the deceased been deemed, that it hath been accounted a point of 
p Uhi corpus homi●is demortui co●aas, sacer esto. Numae lex. Sep●●chrorum sanctitas in ipso solo est, quod nul â vi mov●ri nequ● dele●i potest. C●c. Philip 9 Ebustis defurctorum lapidem movere, terram evertere, cespitem evellere●proximum Sa●rilegio majore, nostri semper habu●runt. julian. Cod. l. 9 tit. 19 leg. 5. ●nde emen●andus Cod●x. Theodos' l 9 tit. 17. l 4. Defunctorum cineribus violentiam infer, sacrilega praesum●●●. Valent. novel, tit. 5. Ne Sepu●●hra quidem dirip●r● & ca●avera ●poliare illicitum ducebant ●a●rilegae v●…pilatorum manus. Eu●eb. Hist. Lat. vers. l. 3. c. 4. Sacrilegae bus●is abstinuere manus. Senec. epigr. 4.  sacrilege, to disturb their remains, or to meddle with the monuments wherein their corpse lie enclosed. But the godly deceased, 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Homer. Il. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plato Menex. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Isocr● Euag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polyb▪ l 8. Siquis est sensus in morte. Cic. Phil. 9 Siquis inferis sensus est Sen ad Po●yb. 6. 18. Siquis vit● digressis est dolour. Ammian. l. 30.  had they sense and understanding of what is here done, (as they had wont to speak, and 
r Sic enim & nostri. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. in jul. 1. Idem in Cae●ar. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem in Pasc●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  we well may) would without all doubt, account it, as well they might, a far greater wrong, to have their names tainted with foul aspersions, of this nature especially, even of the highest and most heinous guilt against the divine Majesty, then to have their Sepulchers defaced, their graves laid open, their bodies digged up, their bones burnt, and their ashes either dispersed into the air, or scattered upon the surface of the waters; or whatsoever other indignity and insolency the vain rage and fond outrage, not of humane, but of inhuman spite and malice hath exercised upon their remains. Let not M. Walker therefore deem his offence in this regard the less heinous, because the man is dead, or 
s Abiit, non obiit. Ambr. Theodos.  deceased rather, whom he thus dealeth with: wherein peradventure, as 
t 〈◊〉 reliquias dissipari▪ jussit, acerbiore odio, quam si tam sapiens fuisset, quam v●●emens fuit. Cio. de leg● l. 2.  he said sometime of Sylla, he had dealt more wisely, had he been less eager. Nor hath he any just cause to complain, because he surviveth; if in the necessary vindication of the deceased so wronged, his inconsiderate carriage therein be discovered. If any blemish accrue to himself or his ministry thereby, he may blame himself rather then any other, who by these violent and outrageous courses much impeacheth and impaireth his own estimation in the minds of all moderate men.  
For his third plea, in regard whereof he claimeth an immunity from being thus dealt with, to wit. 
u Pag. 1.  His persecution and bonds sustained for the truth.  
Of M. Walkers restraint for some time, I have heard. During which also I sometime visited him at his brother's house. And that he suffered for the truth, I hope also is true, though it be more than I know; because I know not for what he suffered. Of his bonds, I never heard till now. If he were ever in bonds, (God be thanked) he is now free. But however, he might do well to remember, that M. Wotton, upon occasion of a passage used in his prayer, when the settling of Church-matters with us was in agitation, (which as things now stand, I suppose would not be so heinously taken) that His Majesty who then was, might in that weighty business, not be swayed with prejudice of long or pretended antiquity, but proceed according to the rule and direction of God's Word, had for some good space of time before been deprived of the exercise of his ministry, and of the means thence arising for the maintenance of him and his; his charge then depending upon him being greater, than I suppose M. Walkers either then was, when he so suffered as he saith, or now is. And that he lay still at that very same time under that heavy presure, (which he was never wholly quit of to his dying day) when M. Walker pursued (I may well say, 
x Galat. 4. 29. with Gen. 21. 90  persecuted him) with those hideous imputations of teaching 
y Letter to M. Wotton Vindic. p. 15.  devilish heresy and 
z Ibid. p. 16.  blasphemy, and 
a Ibid. p. 10. & Relat. p. 4. 5.  the most pestilent opinions that ever Satan sowed among Christians. Now whether this his demeanour toward M. Wotton in such times, were to 
b Psal. 69. 26.  add affliction unto affliction, or no, I leave to any man, not of 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Homer. Onies. 〈◊〉. & Il. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Odies▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  brass bowels, and iron entrails, to determine. This am I sure of, that if M. Walkers troubles, past and overblown now, may aggravate aught here, the storm still continuing might much more aggravate there. But this is the common guise of humane weakness, that men are rather prone to tender 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pindar. N●m. 1. Gr●gor. Stasim. in jul. 1. & Greg. Pr●●b. in vit. Stas.  their own griefs, than the grievances of others; and to deny that privilege of 
e Res est sacr●, miscr. Sen. c. epigr. 4.  sanctuary to their adversaries, under which they require yet to find shelter for themselves. Howsoever, a fond thing it is for any man to imagine, that his sufferings for the truth, either should seal him a Licence to rave against, and rail upon his Christian brethren at pleasure, whether surviving yet, or deceased; or should protect him against all Apology upon such occasions, made either by themselves or by others for them, in their behalf.  
For as for all that, which in the next place 
* Pag. 2.  he subjoineth, in his declamatory way, concerning M. Wotton's assertions; how sincerely they are extracted from M. Wotton's writings, or how depraved with M. Walkers own glosses and fillings; as also how by M. Wotton himself in writing answered, where they might seem to sound somewhat harshly by collating place with place, and reducing them to the state of the point there in question; and lastly, what was thereupon concluded, when these things were at large long since debated, in a way that M. Walker himself pressed M. Wotton unto; you have fully laid down in the Relation before mentioned: which M. Walker also here referreth himself unto; and to transcribe again therefore, would be but lost labour, both to me and to my Reader. That which the rather also I here wave, because I shall be constrained, treading M. Walkers wild maze; as now I must do, to meet with them again more than once or twice, where fitter occasion will be to consider further of them.  
After this complaint commenced of me, M. Walker proceeds 
e Pag. 3.  to lay down the occasion, by which he hath provoked me to proclaim so bitterly against him, and to brand him with breach of piety and charity, and defect of humanity and common honesty; and to inquire what the cause of my so doing should be.  
Where, first, how I have proclaimed (as he speaks) against him, or what bitterness I have used, either in my Preface or Postscript, I am well content that others indifferently affected judge. Howbeit I see none forwarder to complain of bitterness in others, than 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apud Suidam N. Q. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sext. Empir. Pyrrhon. l. 1. c. 29. Alex. Aphrod probi. l. 1. q 101. Alarcus lmper. co●mert. l. 6. § 57 Greg. Stas. desed▪ constant.  those that are most troubled with the overflowing of the gall themselves, and who write ordinarily, as if their pens were dipped and steeped in no other but that bitter liquor.  
Secondly, I demand of M. Walker, where I have thus branded him. True it is, that I do indeed directly and expressly charge him with 
g Relat. P●st●c●. P. 40.  unequal dealing; and 
h ●…d. p. 55.  want of candour in his carriage toward M. Wotton. And this he returns never a word unto, nor will be able ever to wash off. With those other defaults here mentioned I do not myself charge him. I affirm only that such carriage as I there describe, 
i Relat p. 1. 3.  hath been ever generally held a breach of piety and charity, and may well be deemed to argue no small defect of humanity, not to add of common honesty. And what I therein say, no man, I suppose, will deny; not M. Walker himself. But whether M. Walker in his late dealing with M. Wotton have so carried himself, as to contract such guilt, or no, I pronounce not; 
* Relat. p. 3.  I say nothing, but leave it to be deemed and determined by others, upon that which afterward is related, under the hands, either of M Walker himself, or of those whom he himself chose, and by his own choice of them made competent Judges in his cause.  
The Proposition therefore there alone is mine; which M. Walker himself doth not, nor I assure myself, will deny.  
The Assumption is, either his own or theirs. Yea in effect all his own, because the verdict of those, whom he referred himself unto.  
And the conclusion consequently (which 
i Conclusio partem sequior●m sequitu●.  followeth ever the weaker side) as it toucheth M. Walker, not mine, but theirs; yea, in very truth, his own.  
That he charged M. Wotton with heresy and blasphemy, he denieth not: that he referred himself for the truth of his charge to the hearing of eight grave Ministers, his own Letter 
* Relat. p. 5. & Vindic. p. 16.  relateth: that he failed in his proofs, 
* Relat. p. 38.  they testify under their own hands, whom he referred himself unto: that notwithstanding that fail, he hath now so long after that, since M. Wotton's decease, in print renewed that his charge, his book evidently showeth.  
The imputation therefore of such guilt, if all that hath been related do not prove M. Walker faulty in such carriage, he remaineth free enough still from, for aught that I say. If it do evince him so to have carried himself; it is not I, but his own carriage, and the verdict of his own Judges, that fasteneth the imputation upon him.  
For, what he here addeth of 
i Pag. 5.  my misrep●rts, he hath not hitherto, nor shall ever be able to convince me of misrelation in aught.  
But come we to his enquiry. Where first he moveth doubt, 
k Pag. 5.  whether therefore ●be so offended, because he calleth the error, that he chargeth M. Wotton to have been the publisher of, heresy. And if that be the matter he telleth me, that howsoever I and my fellow-subscribers (that is the scornful title that now he giveth us) did not think fit (for some causes, of which hereafter) to call any thing in his Exposition of his speeches by the name of heresy and blasphemy: yet some of them cited in the Parallel, are by his own confession manifestly heretical and blasphemous. And that he rather assented to Beza, Pareus, and Lubbertus, who condemn some things in M. Wotton's expositions for heresy and blasphemy, then to me and my fellows (D. Bayly, M. Balmford, M. Randall, M. Stock, M. Downhum, M. Gouge, and M. Hickes) who were pleased to think otherwise. And he hopeth that therein he giveth no offence; especially having Gods Woudfor his warrant.  
Where first, I wonder how the matter against M. Wotton cometh so much to be aba●ed, that from so many pretended heretical and blasphemous errors, whereof seven horrible heads at least were represented in the Parallel, it should be brought down now to one single error, to one heresy. M. Walkers heart here, it may be, did misgive him; suspecting that some of them might be generally by all votes acquired of heresy at least, if not of error. And he thought it therefore the wisest and wariest course to pitch upon some one; and yet not to tell us, which that one 〈◊〉 ●eant, was, that so he might be free to fasten where he should think fittest, if either his proofs concerning any of the other should fail; or those, whom he calleth in for Advocates in his own behalf, and for witnesses to give evidence against M. Wotton, as condemning his opinions for heretical and blasphemous, should be found voting in some of them rather for him then against him.  
2. Whereas he telleth us, that there are somethings in M. Wotton's Expositions (of which term here more anon) which Beza, Pareus and Lubbertus condemn as heretical and blasphemous; neither yet doth he show what those things are, nor where they so style them. Yea, if to avoid the former exception, he shall say, that the error he meant and called heresy is this, that 
l Socsnianisme discovered, p. 1. 4.  Faith, and not Christ's righteousness is imputed for righteousness in the Act of justification; because he saith that his new adversary hath so stated the question; (with whom yet, or his stating the question, I have nothing here to do) he must be minded, that in the proposition so conceived there are two positions included; both which he condemneth as two pestilent and blasphemous heresies, and in 
m Parall. Error. 1. & 3 Relat. p. 11. 14.  his Parallel pointeth at either of them apart.  

1. That faith is imputed for righteousness.  
2. That Christ's righteousness is not so imputed.   
Now for the former, to wit, that Faith is imputed for righteousness; besides the Apostle 
n Rom. 4. 3, 5, 9, 22, 23, 24.  S. Paul more than once averring it, (whom neither these men nor M. Walker, I hope will so charge) two of them are express and peremptory for it. For so Beza, writing on those words of the Apostle, 
o Rom. 4. 3.  Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. 
p Agitur hîc de eo, quod ipsi d De● imputatum est, nempe de lpsius side. Beza in Rom. 4. 3.  Here, saith he, is entreated of that which was imputed to him by God, to wit of his faith. And again, 
q Paulus activam locutionem passiuè convertens, praetermittit affixum Hebraeum, quod vertere potuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ipsam videlicet s●…m Abrahami. Sed hoc ipsum p●stea disertè bis expri●it. nempe versu 5 & 9 Ibid.  Paul relating passively, what Moses spoke actively, omitteth the affix, which he might have rendered, that thing, to wit, Abraham's faith itself: but he afterward twice plainly expresseth it in the fifth and ninth verses. And Pareus reconciling the Greek with the Hebrew: 
r Idem valent, Deus imputavit fidem, & sides a Deo est imputata. Quantum ad sensum duo continet hoc eloquium; Primò fidem Abrahae; Credidit A. Deo. deinde, fidei fructum, & imputata est ei (fides) ad justitiam. Par. in Rom. 4. 3.  These two are all one, God imputed faith, and faith by God was imputed. As for the sense, this speech concerning Abraham containeth two things: first, his faith; Abraham believed God. Then the fruit of his Faith; And (faith) was imputed to him for righteousness. And again, 
s Et imputata est ei (fides) pro justitiâ. Fructus fidei Abr. significatur, gratuita justificatio. Ibid.  And (faith) was imputed to him for righteousness. The fruit of Abraham's Faith is hereby signified, even free justification. 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non impersonaliter reddi debere, imputatum est, sed passive, imputata est, nempe fides, ex Hebrae● textu, & Apostoli declaratione. Vers. 5. & 9 manifestum est. quod ad sensum Scripturae recte intelligendu●… refert observare. Ibid.  That the Verb should be rendered, not impersonally, but passively; that, to wit, Faith was imputed; it is manifest, both by the Hebrew Text, and by the Apostles declaration in the fifth and ninth verses. Which to observe is of much moment for the right understanding of that Scripture.  
And for the latter position, that Christ's righteousness is not imputed in the act of justification; if by Christ's righteousness be understood his habitual holiness, or his actual righteousness consisting in the perfect observation of the Law moral: here also two of M. Walkers Authors must of necessity leave him, unless they will condemn themselves for blasphemous heretics. For both Pareus and Lubbe●tus, going Ursines and Piscator's way, hold justification to consist wholly in remission of sins. For so Pareus expressly (besides what out of him 
v Relat. Postscript. p. 58.  elsewhere) in his Commentaries before mentioned; 
u Apostolus justificationem in solâ remissione peccatorum constituit. P●ran Rom. 4. 7. Dub. 5.  The Apostle placeth justification in the Remission of sins alone. Nor doth 
* Manifestum est, non imputar● peccatum, poni pro justificare, Lub. ad Socin. l. 2. c. 2. p. 124. col. 2. Saepe ostendimus justificationem contineri gratuitâ peccatorum remissione. Ibid. l. 4. c. 10. p. 551. col. 2.  Lubbertus herein depart from him. And both therefore also herein concur; that they ground our justification, not upon the Righteousness of Christ, so understood, as hath been said; but on the merit of, and satisfaction made by his sufferings. That which, as for Pareus, by a whole 
x De justitiâ Christi Actiuâ, & Passiva Epist. ad Com. Lud. Witgen.  Treatise written of purpose by him about that Argument, doth most evidently appear; so for Lubbertus is also clear enough, by divers 
y In 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est justitia duplex, divina & humana. Humana est inhaerens, & acquisita, illam vocant habitualem; hanc meritoriam. de illa loquitur Apus. Heb. 7. 26. & 1 Pet. 3. 18. de hac Rom. 5. 9 per unam satisfactionem. v. 19 Lubb. c●ntr. Socin. l. 3. c. 5. Sanguine, srve obedientiâ Christi justificamur formalite●; fide instrumentaliter. Ibid. c. 2. p. 355. Duo ad justificationem reqiruntur; unum, ut Christus pro peccatis nostris mortuus sit, atque ita pro eis satisfaciat: alterum, ut nos hanc Christi solutionem five satisfactionem vera fide recipiamus. Ibid. l. 4. c. 9 p. 547. Haec justitia, s●ve obedientia, iive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christi, sive denique sacrificium, sive sanguis Christi, sive solutio pretii redemptionis nostrae à Christo sacta, absolvit nos 〈◊〉 reatu, constituit nos justos, justificat nos, etc. Ibid. c. 1. p. 445, 44●. Christi enim obedientia, quam Patri in morte pro nobis praestitit, est vera illa justitia, quâ Patri reconciliamur. Ibid. c. 4. p 472.  passages, even in those works which were written by him professedly against the errors of Socinus. Yea so far doth Pareus proceed herein, that he sticketh not to avow that, 
z Qui obedientiae activae, aut sanctitati nativae, meritum justitiae ascribunt, mortem Christi sine dubio inanem reddunt. Par. de justit. Christi activ. & pass. pofit. 5. p. 181.  Those that ascribe the merit of righteousness unto Christ's active obedience or his native holiness, 
c M●rti Christi justificationem contra Scripturas derogant. Ibid. p 182.  do thereby derogate from the death of Christ, and do undoubtedly make it vain, or superfluous. Now I would gladly understand from M. Walker what he thinketh of Pareus, and whether he count not him a blasphemous heretic, as well as M. Wotton. As for me & my fellows, as in scorn now he calleth them, (though peradventure as good men as M. Walker himself) I hold it no disgrace to me, to be yoked with such; and to have deemed rather as they, then as M. Walker either then did, or now doth. Mean while how little cause M. Walker hath to crack so much of these Authors, by what hath been said, may easily be deemed; and muchless to affirm, what so confidently 
* Letter to M. Wotton. p. 15.  elsewhere he doth, that he hath all learned Divines agreeing with him in what he holds: and that 
“ Pag. 6, 7.  the whole stream of learned Orthodox Divines hold the same Doctrine with him concerning justification by Christ's righteousness imputed to believers. Which in such sense and manner as he maintains it, he cannot but know to be most untrue; unless he will expunge Pareus, Piscator, and I know not how many more, generally so esteemed, on● of the List of learned and Orthodox Divines.  
3. Yea but M. Wotton▪ 〈◊〉 M. W●lker, is 
* Pag. 3, 4.  proved a blasphemous 〈◊〉 by h●…●onf●ssion. I answer in a word. How M. 〈◊〉 ●…th the denial of Christ's righteousness imp●… to be heretical and blasphemous; he plainly ex●resseth himself in his 
a Answer to error 1. Relat. p. 22.  defence; whence M. Walker produceth it. To which therefore, and M. Bradshawes' Preface to his English Treatise of justification, I refer the Reader: yet so, that of the one, and out of the other, somewhat hereafter also shall be said.  
4. How far forth M. Walker hath God's Word for his warrant, in condemning M. Wotton, not of error (for that neither was, nor is the question) but of heresy and blasphemy (for that was the point in controversy, when time was) he hath not yet made to appear, no more than he did. For what here fond and ridiculously in that kind he presumeth, by the sentence of his own delegates, he was not then able to make good.  
What else is 
b Pag. 5.  here ferced in, concerning the carriage of the business at that meeting, shall in its due place (by God's assistance) be discussed.  
The other doubt he moveth concerning the cause of my proclaiming so bitterly against him, and being so highly offended with him, is, 
c Ibid.  Whether it be, because he calleth M. Wotton by the name of Anthony Wotton. And if that be the cause, he telleth me, that 
d Sic scil. bear solet ami●os.  therein he did him a favour. For that under that obscure t●●le, his person might have been hid, and not made known to any but those, who are acquainted with all the passages between him and M. Walker. But M. Gataker is the man, that hath exposed his person to much shame, and stained his name and memory with the brand of heresy, etc.  
Sure he must be some, not merry, but very sad person, not grave and sage only, that can read this passage without laughing, or smiling at least.  
Which to show, let me entreat M. Walker to make M. Wotton's case a while here his own. M. Walker, as by his Parallel plainly appears, 
e Relat. Paral. error 2. p. 13.  denieth Faith to be a condition on man's part required unto the attaining of justification. Now suppose that some one of his own spirit should thereby take occasion, in a Treatise of his published many years after M. Walkers decease, to traduce him for the same, by the name of George Walker, as the first publisher in this Land of a most pestilent heresy; and thereby charge him to have made himself 
f See Relat. p 54.  guilty of Paganism, Ind●is● and Mahumetanism. Would it not be ridiculous, for the party having so dealt with him, to demand of one that should write in his defence, Why he is so highly offended with him, and whether it be for this cause or no, because he calleth him George Walker? etc. For were it not all o●…, as if some rude fellow, having c●st a shovel of du●t or two upon a man, as he passeth in the street, should ask the party so misused, contesting with him about it, what he aileth to be so offended with him; and whether it be, because he did not make him a leg, or give him, as we use to say, the time of the day. He might as well have moved question, whether I were not so offended, because he styleth him barely Usum Wotton, and not Mr. A. Wotton: Or whether because he calleth him Anthony and not Antony, as he usually and rightly wrote his name, save that by the Printers correction, or corruption rather, he found it so also in my relation.  
But that that followeth, is yet more ridiculous, that herein he did M. Wotton a singular favour. For under that obscure title he had lain hid and unknown to any, but those alone that had been acquainted with all that had passed between M. Walker and him.  
Is the name of Antony Wotton then so obscure a title? or are there so many of note so named, that this our A Wotton may lie hid in the heap, among the multitude of them, unless be be by some special notes and marks otherwise deciphered? And yet any man, not utterly crackt-brained, would have thought, that 
g M. Walkers Socinianism discovered and confuted. p. 6.  Anthony Wotton, one that some 28. years ago lived in London, and there in Manuscript Pamphlets and Printed books dispersed his opinions concerning justification, and 
h Ibid. Epist. p. 2.  by the fame and opinion, which men had of his great learning and no less piety, drew many zealous professors into the liking of his errors; and afterward 
i Socin. disc. p. 7.  ●rought a book De Reconciliati●…e, in Latin, etc. Any man would think, I say, unless he wanted his ●its that thus much were sufficient to discover, who the man were, that M. Walker meant, though they that read him were not privy to all M. Walkers either revile of him in public, or baitings of him in private. Suppose M. Walkers adversary before assigned him, had only styled him, George Walker, one that so many years ago had in the City of London out of the Pulpit inveighed and declamed oft against M. Wotton's writings and M. bradshaw's works, as containing much heretical and blaspemous matter, etc. were it not enough to let men know who the man were that be meant (notwithstanding I suppose there be and have been about the City more Walkers then Wotton's) unless they had been acquainted with all things, that either at the solemn meeting of Ministers, or in private otherwise, had passed between him and M. Wotton.  
But that, which herein exceedeth all the rest; is, that 
i Pag. 5.  M. Gataker by his relation of the business that passed between them, and thereby blasoning his Arms, hath exposed him to sh●me, and stained his name with the brand of here●ie.  
I never knew that I had any skill in Heraldry before; nor have heard of staining with brands till now. Two new trades M. Walker hath here put upon me, both which I must needs profess myself utterly unskilful in. But to let these things pass; whether of the two, stain a man's name, and expose him to shame; he that publicly chargeth him with heresy and blasphemy; or he that publisheth his acquittal from such horrid imputations, by the verdict, and under the hands of those, whom the same party appellant himself had made therein his Judges; I am well content that any, not wholly in 
k Nec savi esse ●…is non●…nus jaret Orestes Pers. sat 3.  Orestes his mood, whatsoever else he be, determine.  
After this Preamble thus premised, M. Walker proceeds to his Narration. 
l Pag. 5 9  The former part whereof is spent in such stories, as M. Walker is pleased to entertain his Reader withal, of matters foregoing the Meeting of the Ministers before mentioned, concerning 
m Pag. 5, 6.  himself and his reading and preaching, 
n Pag. 6.  M. Richardson and his approbation of M. Walkers censures passed upon M. Wotton's opinion; 
o Pag. 6, 7.  M. Wotton's dealing, and 
p Pag. 8.  the carriage of some of his followers.  
All which yet I suppose no man is bound to make any part of his Creed. Such of them especially as are grounded upon other men's reports; as the frivolous and ridiculous tale, that 
q Pag. 8, 9  his Clerk, he saith, told him, concerning some of M. Wotton's Disciples and himself; and may the rather be questioned, because in the ensuing Discourse are found some very palpable untruths; and such as were to be charged upon M. Walker himself, were they not salved with a some say. And what he reporteth 
r Pag. 7.  of M. Wotton's juggling repeated again 
s Pag. 13.  in his Epistle, and 
* Epist. before his discovery p. 5.  elsewhere, is by M. Wotton very confidently and peremptorily denied, as shall hereafter be related.  
As for that he relateth of M. Richardsons' censure, both 
t Pag. 6.  here, and 
u Pag. 25, 26.  hereafter, be it true or no; I say only thus much to it: that if M. Richardson shall condemn all those for blasphemous heretics, who deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness consisting in the perfect observation of the Law Moral unto justification; and hold justification to consist wholly in remission of sins: (which I conceive to be M. Wotton's principal error, and wherein I descent both from him and them) he shall together with M. Wotton exclude from life eternal Olevian, Piscator, Ursinus, Pareus, Scultetus, Altingius, Cameron, and many other Worthies, who were as famons and bright lights in the Church of God here, as ever M. Richardson was, while he lived; and (if the Prophet 
x Dan. 12. 3.  Daniel may be believed) do now shine as Stars in the Kingdom of heaven, and so shall do for ever and ever; whatsoever doom M. Richardson, or M. Walker shall pass on them. For my part I deem this their censure not unlike that other conceit, that I remember to have heard M. Walker sometime maintain, and is fathered likewise upon the same party, (concerning whom, I forbear to speak my mind, lest I undergo the lash of M. Walkers tongue) that, The fall of our first parents proceeded not from the mutability of their will: and that all that hold it to have thence proceeded, by so holding, make God the Autour of sin. By which censure all the Divines in the World (for aught I know, M. Walker, and M. Richardson, if he at least so also held, only excepted) are condemned of extreme impiety; yea of Atheism, or worse, (if 
y See Vindicat. p. 34. 35.  M. Walkers manner of arguing by deduction may go for currant) since that 
z Quid interest Deos neges, an infames? Senec. ●p. 133. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plut. de. supers●it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Porphyr. de abstin. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiphani aneor. §. 9  it is much at one, to hold God to be wicked, and to hold him no God at all.  
But this former part of M. Walkers Narration, be it what it will, nothing at all concerneth me, who begin my Relation at M. Walkers Letter, and the meeting that thereupon ensued.  
Out of his Letter, wherewith he beginneth the latter part of it, I 
a Relat. p. 4. 5.  relate only M. Walkers charge and his challenge. Which that they are there found, among much other lavish and menacing language, in as many words as I relate them; by M. Walkers own 
b Vindic. p. 9 18.  Transcript of it may evidently appear.  
With the main substance whereof, (being such as sufficiently discovereth by what spirit it was indicted) I shall not much meddle; but shall only relate what I find written in the margin of a copy of it (testified to be a true copy by the attestation of M. Stephen Egerton, and M William Gouge thereunto annexed) with M. Wotton's own hand.  
Against those words, 
c Vindic. p. 10.  If you had not refused to join with me in a Christian Conference, etc.  
I never had any such offer made me from you.  
Against those words, 
d Pag. 12.  You in scorn sent me to one Spencer, etc.  
The party will be deposed, that this is altogether false,  
Against those words, 
e Pag. 12.  This your doing when I complained to you of face to face, you excused as done in ignorance of mine intent and desire.  
This is most false.  
Against those words, 
f Pag. 13.  Did I not then show both patience, love, and all good affection?  
How true the report of this conference is, they that were by can witness: and to them I appeal.  
Upon 
g Pag. 13.  that passage, before 
h Pag. 7.  also mentioned, and yet before that at large related and pressed, in his Epistle prefixed before his Socinianism discovered and confuted, concerning a place of Luther, that M. Wotton should allege, covering with his fingers some part of it in the same page, that made against him, against those words, 
i Pag. 13.  If you deny this, God is my witness, and mine own conscience.  
God is my witness against you, that this is most falsely reported by you.  
Against those words, 
k Pag. 14.  They and you were so far from amendment, that you made me amends with all railing and reviling language.  
If you speak of me, it is most untrue: for others I cannot answer.  
Against those words, related as M. Wottons, concerning the Bishop of London, 
l Pag. 15.  You dare not co●…it yourself to him, because he is a wicked judge, and will respect persons in judgement: my friends are too potent with him.  
The Lord let me find no mercy with him, if ever I said so, or thought so of the Bishop of London.  
Other notes I let pass, being less material, or concerning other men rather then M. Wotton himself. But for the further and fuller clearing of this last clause, I shall subjoin out of a letter of M. egerton's written to M. Wotton, dated May 23. 1614 under his own hand, the very words that M. Wotton used concerning the Bishop.  

* M. Eg●rtons Letter to M. Wotton.  Among some other passages, you had this speech in effect, that you thought that my Lord of London would not willingly do any thing, that might impeach M Walker, because (as you had heard) his brother of Cheswick was very gracious with my Lo●d. Thus much in effect, and not a jot more, did I signify to M. Walker only by way of demand, etc. How sound and charitably M. Walker collected hereupon, that you either said or intimated, that you durst not commit yourself to the Bishop of London, because he is a wicked man, etc. I leave it to others to determine. This I profess, that neither when I received it from you, nor when I told it to his ear, I did so much as conceive or imagine, that you had any such conceit of my Lord of London.  
Thus that reverend Divine, now with the Lord: by whose testimony may appear, how prone M. Walker is to tenter out men's words, beyond all, not charitable only, but even reasonable, construction.  
From his Letter, M. Walker proceedeth to the Meeting or Conference therein required; which he saith is 
n Vindic. p. 9  the subject of mine invective against him.  
In relating whereof yet I use no Invective at all. I report only what was done and exhibited on both parts: & what resolved by the parties on either side deputed to hear and decide. Neither of which M. Walker either doth or can deny.  
But M. Walker must give me leave, to deal here a little more freely with him; and to tell him in plainer terms, that many things delivered in this part of his Narration, are either utterly untrue, or such as may justly be suspected of untruth.  
1. He maketh his very entrance into it with a manifest untruth, though a matter of no great moment. He saith, that 
o Pag. 19  Upon the receipt and reading of that his Letter, M. Wotton sent him a Letter of defiance, and therein professed his scorn and disdain of his threatenings: but the next day he sent him another, wherein he promised to yield to his motion. Which, though not much material, whether so or no, yet is not true. For M. Wotton sent him but one Letter with a Postscript of divers date added thereunto: which must needs therefore come to M. Walkers hands both at once; and not the one this day, and the other the next, as M. Walker here relates it. M. Wotton had indeed begun and gone on a good way in a large Answer to M. Walkers whole Letter; which is yet to be seen; and I could well have been content to afford it room here, save that I found it unfinished, and withal was loath to make this discourse overlong. But therein it seems he altered his mind, and sent him this shorter. Which, if but to show the difference of these two men's spirits, I have thought good here to insert.  
To Mr. George Walker, peace of conscience, by true zeal with Sobriety and Charity.  
SIR, if you have any true desire of my good, especially testified by prayer to God for me, the Lord requite your love, and uphold me in the continuance of the like duty for you now and ever. But I must plainly profess, that I can hardly be persuaded of the truth of your protestation: because I find your present Letters, being the first that ever I received from you, so full of bitterness. Yet could I have been contented to have made some Answer to them, but that I see it would be to small or no purpose. For a great part of your vehement accusation concerns other men, and not me: who am not (in any equity) to be charged with their faults, (if any have so faulted) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The things, which touch myself, are all, either utterly untrue, or misreported by you. And to what purpose were it, for me to deny, and you to affirm; and so as it were outvie one another's credit? Concerning the offer you make of putting the points in question, whether first you do justly charge me with heresy and blasphemy; and whether secondly, my writings do not show me to be a Socinian; I could happily have yielded thereunto, without excepting against any one whom you name, if you had not so violently sought it, by frighting me (as you imagined) with complaining, to my L. of Canterbury his Grace and the Commission, of me, if I refused. Good M Walker do not think me so childish or foolish, that I can be scared with such terrors and menacings. I am so throughly resolved of the truth I hold, differing immane quantum from Socinus blasphemy, and so well persuaded of my Lord's soundness in judgement, and the equal hearing I shall have in that Court, that I am not afraid to put the matter there to trial. Wherefore use your discretion, either in this, or in any other course, that shall best please you: I will always be ready to maintain the truth I know, and to acknowledge that, I yet know not, whensoever it shall be discovered to me by the Word of God. To whose gracious blessing I commend the pardoning and reforming of this and all other wrongs you have done me, and rest,  
Tower-hill, May 5. 1614 Yours as it becomes a Christian to be ANTONY WOTTON.  
Postscript.  
Since the writing of this Letter, I have been persuaded by them, by whom I am willing to be advised and ruled, to yield to your motion, which by this Postscript I now signify unto you; Conditionally, that all things, wherewith you charge me in your Letter may also be heard, and the Letter itself scanned, as they, that shall be and are chosen, shall think meet. The manner of this trial, with the time and pl●ce, must (in reason) be left to their wisdoms and liking. Whom I will choose, you shall understand from me, upon signification that you accept of this condition. The expectation of your former Messenger, who said he would call for an Answer, hath made me to put off the writing of this till now.  
May 12.  
Thus have you M Wotton's Letter of defiance, as M. Walker is pleased to style it, so full of scorn and disdain; nothing suitable indeed to M. Walkers Invective, nor savouring at all of his furious spirit. And you have withal in the Postscript the reason of the delay of M. Wotton's answer, returned thereunto not without the Postscript because detained by him till then. That which also is testified by M. Walkers own Letter written in answer hereunto; wherein he professeth himself to have been at the first sight of M. Wotton's Letter much troubled, as in some other respects, so in regard of the refusal of his motion, and the defiance (as there also he terms it) of his threatenings; until he found at last to his comfort, an acceptance of his motion, upon the advice of his friends.  
2. That which next followeth, hath as little truth in it as the former, being a matter of more moment; to wit, that 
p Vindic. p. 19  M. Wotton, After that by Letter to M. Walker he had promised to yield to his motion about a conference, did by M. Mason the Bishop's Chaplain use means to make it known to the Bishop, in hope that he would forbid the meeting. Whereas M. Wotton had not yet written to M. Walker, that he would accept of that his offer, (desirous rather of a public hearing, than a private conference) until he had been with the Bishop, 
q See Relat. p. 56.  whom he importuned for an open and judiciary trial; and being pressed by him rather to condescend to the course by M. Walker propounded, had thereupon consented and yielded thereunto; upon condition that the Bishop would assign one of his Chaplains to be a party in the hearing; who to satisfy M. Wotton's request therein, appointed M. Mason then present, to M. Wotton otherwise a mere stranger, to undertake that employment. After which therefore M. Wotton added the Postscript above recited, to his Letter, lying yet by him, because not yet called for by M. Walkers messenger, according to M. Wotton's expectation and his promise.  
3. It is not true, that 
r Vindic. p. 19  M. Hicks and myself bore ourselves at the meeting, towards M. Walker as an Adversary, or as Advocates for M. Wotton: Unless to require the forbearance of railing and reviling terms, and endeavouring to have the business fairly and calmly carried, without Invectives and Declamations, which M. Walker, if let alone, would never have made an end of, may bear such an interpretation. And yet M. Hicks (a man whom to my knowledge I never saw before or since, nor know I how M. Walker knows to be 
s Ibid.  of M. Wotton's mind in all points) spoke least in the business of the most there present, being the youngest among us, and a man of very modest and moderate carriage. But somewhat must be fastened on a man least known; because of the better known it would not be so easily believed.  
4 It is not true that 
t Ibid.  D. Westfield was the only man there, with whom M. Walker had then any great familiarity. For M. Stock and he, as they were next neighbours in their charges, so were very familiar; though for his kindness he have been but ill rewarded by M. Walker in some 
u Pag. 22, 23.  passages here ensuing. For I leave it to M. Walker to reconcile his own relations; wherein he telleth us, here, that 
x Pag. 19  he was but a stranger of two years' residence in the City at the time of our meeting Anno 1614 and yet before in the very entrance, that 
y Pag. 1.  the controversy between M. Wotton and himself began Anno 1611. He was belike very busy in the City, before he had any residence in the City. But this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in his own acts, himself, I hope, will some way assoll.  
5. Nor is it true, that the parties designed, were 
a Pag. 19  all of them M. Wotton's old familiar friends. What any of the rest might be, I cannot certainly say; though of few of them, I suppose, M. Walker is able to make it good. But for myself, I was then but lately grown into acquaintance with him by occasion of my removal from Lincolns-Inne to Rederith. Besides that there had much strangeness grown before that time (as 
b See of Paul and Barnabas, Acts 15. 39 Chryso●●ome & Ep●…mus, S●crates Hist. Eccl. 〈◊〉. 6 c. 13. Hierome and Aug●stine in then Ep●stles to either Hierome & Ruffian, in Hieromes Epistles and Invectives.  between the best and holiest sometime it falleth out) between M. Stock and M. Wotton, a thing too well known to, and much lamented by, many interressed in either.  
6. It is not true, that 
c Pag. 〈◊〉.  I derided him, when he gave in his charge of Socinian heresy & blasphemy against M. Wotton. For I never so did. Tho I confess, I could not forbear smiling at the reading of 
d Relat p. 13.  the second point in his Parallel condemned as a blasphemous Socinian heresy. And I suppose that scarce any sound and judicious Divine will be able to read it sine risu aut stomacho.  
7. Nor is it true, that 
e Vindic. p. 19  Dr. Baily came in amongst us, as by M. Walker designed to succeed in the room of D. Westfield. For D. Westfield was expected that very day, that D. Bailiff intruded himself into our company, though very likely indeed; not without M. Walker● privity and procurement, to disturb our proceedings. Yet not pretending to appear in D. Westfields' room, however afterward he supplied it, to make up the number; but making bold forsooth to associate himself with us, 
f See Relat. p 8, 9  because we met in his Church. The most of the rest misliking, and muttering at it among themselves, as desirous rather of his room then his company. And that, as for some other reasons not so fit to be here related; so the rather for that no sooner almost he was set down among us, but he began to quarrel with M. Wotton about his ap apparel, because he went not in a Ministerial habit.  
8. Whereas it is added, that 
g Pag 15.  D. Westfield refused after our first meeting, to meet any more, (which yet unto the rest of us he never once intimated) because he perceived a general inclination in us all to favour M. Wotton, as foreseeing and fearing what followed. As therein M. Walker taxeth not me alone, but the whole company of open partiality: so it may rather justly be surmised, that D. Westfield being of a mild and moderate disposition, forbore further to present himself among us, being wearied out with M. Walkers furious and intemperate carriage, sufficient to have tired us all: and this I suppose they will the more incline to, that know the man's temper.  
9 It is not true, that 
h Pag. 19 20.  M. Walker did at first desire of us, that having in writing paralleled M. Wotton's words with Socinus his, we would give our hands to his parallel, and subscribe, that he had not charged M. Wotton with any opinions or words but his own; or confuted under the name of Socinianism any words of his, wherein he concurred not with Socinus. For 
i See Relat. p. 9  neither was there at first any mention of a Parallel; nor came the motion of it, when it was afterward mentioned, from M. Walker; but was after some waist of time spent to no purpose in clamorous declamations and invectives, by myself propounded; that we might thereby the better discern, how the case stood concerning the matters controverted, and bring the business to some good issue: nor was any such subscription ever on M. Walkers part required; who as he now seoffeth us by the name of Subscribers; so could not after due hearing endure to hear of any subscribing; well wotting by the verdict of the whole company, what the subscription was like to be.  
10. He frameth 
k Pag. 19, 20.  his narration, as if his Parallels had been read alone without M. Wotton's Answer: and that 
l Pag. 20.  upon the reading and examining of them, they appeared to some of them so clear, and his cause so just, that the same day at dinner Dr. Bailiff did protest, that M. Walker had discovered M. Wotton to be as damned an heretic as ever did tread on English ground: and after again, that 
m Pag. 22.  the said Doctor upon the first reading of M. Wotton's speeches so paralleled, condemned M. Wotton for an heretic, and his errors for blasphemy. To wit, at a private table, as before he had related. Now whether D. Bailiff spoke thus or no, I will not call in question; because M. Walker saith he hath sufficient witnesses of it. But this I say:  
1. That his Parallel was not delivered in before or without M. Wottons Answer. For so 
n See Relat. p. 10.  it was agreed. Nor were all the Parallels or points paralleled read over at once; but severally related, considered of, and examined, together with M. Wotton's answer thereunto, and both withal debated, as they stood in order, and came to hand, some one day, and some an other.  
2. For the Doctor's speech, (howsoever his judgement, I suppose, so rashly given especially, will bear no great weight with those that throughly knew the man and his manner) if it were such as M. Walker saith; and were delivered, as he implieth, upon the very first hearing of M. Walkers charge only read, before he had heard M. Wotton's defence: it may seem, he was of that mind, that 
o Zeno Phocylidis dictum illud notabat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plut. de Stoic. contradict. §. 4.  the Stoic sometime was, who held it a ridiculous thing to hear any defendant or second party: though most wise men have ever been 
p John 7. 51. Act. 15. 16. Neminem praedamnare incognità causa licet. Lactant l. 5. c. 1.  of a contrary judgement; requiring 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plut. Alex. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Anton. M●…. 〈◊〉. c. 53.  the one ear at least to be reserved for the defendant; and condemning those of 
r Qui statuit aliquid. parte i●auditâ aliera; AEquum licet fiatu●rit, ●aud aequs fuit. Sense. Med. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Menand.  unjust and unequal dealing, albeit the sentence they pass be agreeable to right, that condemn a man unheard.  
But, if the Doctor then said, as M. Walker saith he did; and yet afterward did under his hand acquit M. Wotton of heresy and blasphemy, as it is acknowledged that he did; one of the two must of necessity follow, either that he altered his judgement therein upon the hearing of M. Wotton's defence, considering better of the business then before he had done; or that he gave sentence and subscribed directly contrary to his own judgement, and so 
s judex damnatur, cum nocens absolvitur. P. Syrus.  in acquitting M. Wotton condemned himself. Of either whereof let M. Walker choose which he please, and make the best use of it for his own advantage.  
11. Howbeit to afford the Doctor a plaster, wherewith to salve his credit, herein somewhat impeached, M. Walker bringeth in the party, at whose house they dined, demanding, 
t Pag. 20.  Why they did not then without more ado justify M. Walker, and censure M. Wotton. M. Walker might much better himself rather have asked the Doctor, why he said not so much openly at the meeting; or how it came to pass that he did not there utter any one syllable or title tending thereunto; whenas at the table now (whereby any man may deem of the Doctor's discretion, if all that M. Walker tells of him be true) he so freely and fully passed and published his censure. Now to this question of his hosts M. Walker shapeth this answer, (in whose person uncertain; for M. Walker is nothing clear in these his dramatical discourses) 
u Ibid.  They pretended, that they desired to convert, not to confound M. Wotton; that they perceived him to be afraid of a storm like to fall on him: and that if I would yield to let him expound himself, he would by a wrested exposition gainsay and contradict his former words and opinions, and run from them: which being gotten from him under his own hand, they would either hold him to it, or shame him for ever, if he did fall back again.  
Such a passage, as I know not, nor any man else, I think, what to make of.  
For first, who be the They, that he speaketh of? was it the Doctor alone, that told all this fair tale, and pretended all this? how cometh he then to say, They? Or if M. Downham be included, who is related to have dined at the same time with them; how doth M. Walker, in his ensuing Discourse make him 
x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Muta persona.  a mute Actor in this Scene, one that 
y Pag. 22.  by silence only assented to, what the Doctor then said? Again, where, think we, meaneth he, that all this was pretended? was it pretended at the Table? or was it related only there; but pretended before at the meeting among ourselves? But I shall leave it to any man of ordinary understanding to conceive, how likely it is; either that M. Wotton's friends (for such M. Walker saith they were all) should thus conspire to ensnare him; or that such a consultation should be had among us in the presence of M. Wotton himself. For we did nothing at our meetings but in the presence of M. Wotton and M. Walker; who were neither of them ever excluded, or required to withdraw themselves upon any occasion, during the whole hearing. But M. Walker it may well seem, was somewhat distracted in mind, when he writ this; studying how to bring in handsomely what himself had invented, and uncertain whom to father and fasten it upon. For mark, I pray you, what immediately follows.  
12. 
a Pag. 20.  This course, saith he, being M. Gatakers device, I refused to yield unto: because I had never opposed M. Wotton, but only in his opinions formerly published, and and not in future Expositions: and because I had fully proved my charge, I desired their verdict and just judgement. But after much importunity I yielded; and so lost my cause, and was drawn into a new business; that was, to contend with M. Wotton, not about his former opinions, but about new expositions, which he would make in answer to my Parallel.  
In which words are couched many gross falsehoods: nor was the former passage so intricate, but this is much more untrue.  
1. He affirmed before, that They pretended this and that; and thereupon plotted to get I know not what under M. Wotton's hand. Now he telleth his Reader, that This course was M. Gattakers device. 
b Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo?  Where at length shall we have him?  
2. True it is indeed, I was the first mover, that M. Walker might be requested to make such a parallel; as 
c Relat. p. 9  in my relation I acknowledge. But that I ever had any such pretence, as M. Walker here talketh of, or ever made any motion for aught under M. Wotton's hand, is most untrue. M. Wotton only himself moved, (as I 
d Relat. p. 9, 10.  elsewhere relate) that he might have the Parallels sent him from M. Walker a day or two before the next hearing, that he might subjoin his answer and defence thereunto.  
3. That M. Walker refused to yield thereunto, and was by mere importunity drawn to admit it, is likewise most false. For it was presently deemed most equal on all sides: nor did M. Walker in the least manner make any show of dislike.  
4. It is a like true, that upon the giving in of his parallel, he required our verdict; that course being not as yet condescended unto, which he termeth my device. When as the course mentioned, and by M. Wotton himself motioned, was agreed upon before his parallel was composed, and much more then, before it was exhibited. So that by M. Walkers relation a verdict should have been past by his Judges, while the parallel, containing the evidence, was as yet, if as yet at least, in the Actor's brain only.  
But to take the business, and discuss it a while, as M. Walker here relateth it.  
First, I refer it to any indifferent man's judgement to determine, whether it were agreeable to equity, for M Walker to require a verdict of his judges, (as he termeth them) or for them to give it in his behalf, against M. Wotton, upon a bare sight of some positions found as well in M. Wotton, as in Socinus, (supposing it so to be) before M. Wotton's defence were either exhibited or heard. And here let me crave leave to show the unreasonableness of such a request, and it be but by one instance. M Walker in his Parallel chargeth this Position upon M. Wotton, as a point of Socinianism, an heretical and blasphemous assertion, that 
e Prallel. Error. 2. Relat. p. 13.  Faith is a condition appointed by God to be performed on our parts for obtaining of justification. Now, it being granted, that the very same words were by M. Walker exhibited, (which yet precisely they are not) as well out of Socinus his works, as out of M. Wotton's writings: had it not been, think we, a very discreet part of them whom the business was committed unto, to have without more ado, so censured it, as M Walker had charged it, and in so censuring it, to have condemned themselves, (who openly to M. Walkers face 
* Relat. p. 36.  professed, that they had oft taught it) and not themselves alone, but all orthodox Divines (for aught I know) in the whole world; yea the Apostle S. Paul himself to boot too, if some of them may be believed; for Socinians and blasphemous heretics? For I would fain know of M Walker, how this differeth that he so chargeth, from what Pareus saith, and avoweth to be S. Paul's, that 
f Fidem inserit, ut d●ccat Pidem esse conditi●…m, sub qua Christus nobis datus est propitiatorium. Pareus in Rom. 3. 25.  Faith is the condition, under which Christ is given us for a propitiation. Or, not to look out abroad, but to keep ourselves at home; I should desire to understand from him, what he thinketh of these passages in some writers of our own; and those men of no mean note neither.  
First, that of M. Fox, 
g Conditio, qua propriè justificamur, ea est, ut in Christum credamus. Fox de Christ. great. justif. p. 244.  The condition whereby we are properly justified is this, that we believe in Christ. And again, 
* Promissio Evangelica nullam exigit conditionem aliam, praeter fidem duntaxat, qua credimus in filium Dei. Ibid p. 240.  The Evangelicall promise requireth no other condition to the attaining of salvation, besides Faith only, whereby we believe on the Son of God.  
Secondly, that of M. Perkins, in his Reformed Catholic; 
h Reform. Cathol. Point. 4. of Justificat. the manner, Differ. 2. Reason 1.  In the Covenant of Grace, two things must be considered: the substance thereof, and the condition. The substance of the Covenant is, that Righteousness and life everlasting is given to God's Church and people by Christ. The condition is, that we for our parts are by faith to receive the foresaid benefits. And this condition is by grace as well as the substance.  
Or if these men be not of that esteem with M. Walker, but that he can be content to let them go for damned heretics, to bear M. Wotton company in the same condemnation, I should crave to be informed, what he deemeth of M. Pemble, 
i M. Wil Pe●bles Uindiciae. Or, Plea for grace, that especially of faith.  some of whose works he hath deigned to honour with a Dedicatory Epistle; wherein he commendeth him, as 
k M. G. Walker Epist. to the Christian Reader.  a righteous and faithful servant of Christ, excelling in grace and virtue, abounding in all wisdom, and in all knowledge, lively sense and utterance of heavenly and supernatural mysteries, far above all that could be expected from, or is ordinarily found in one of his age and years. 
l Ibid.  Nor doubteth therefore, nor is afraid to say of him, that he is ascended up into that supercelestial glory, towards which he had ever bend all his studies and desires. This M. Pemble then, whom M. Walker thus extolleth, and not altogether undeservedly, in another of his works hath these words: 
m M. W. Pemble, Vindiciae Fidei, or, Of justification by Faith, Sect. 2. chap. 1. p. 23.  There are two covenants that God hath made with man: by one of which salvation is to be obtained. The one is the Covenant of works, thè tenor whereof is, Do this, and thou shalt live. The other is the Covenant of Grace, the tenor whereof it, Believe in the Lord jesus, and thou shalt be saved. The condition of this Covenant, 
n Ibid. p. 22.  (required in them that shall be justified) is faith. The performance whereof differs from the performance of the condition of that other Covenant. Do this and live, is a compact of pure justice; wherein wages is given by debt; so that he that doth the work obeying the Law, may in strict justice for the work sake claim the wages, eternal life, upon just desert. Believe this and live, is a compact of freest and purest mercy; wherein the reward of eternal life is given us in favour for that, which bears not the least proportion of worth with it: so that he that performs the condition, cannot yet demand the wages, as due unto him in severity of justice, but only by the grace of a free promise, the fulfilling of which he may humbly sue for. And again, 
o Ibid. p. 24.  Although the act of justification of a sinner be properly the only work of God, for the only merit of Christ: yet is it rightly ascribed unto faith, and it alone; for as much as faith is that main condition of the New Covenant; which, as we must perform, if we will be justified; so by the performance whereof we are said to obtain justification and life. Thus M. Pemble: in which passages (though I will not justify all therein contained) he fully and clearly expresseth M. Wotton's meaning not as his own judgement only, but 
p The Reformed Churches thus explain themselves. Ibid. p. 23.  as the doctrine of the Reformed Churches by them so explained. Now I demand of M. Walker, whether for this damnable and detestable position, we shall do well, without further search or trial, (the rather since that the same, he saith, is found in Socinus) to condemn M. Pemble of heresy, and require, if not his bones to be digged up again and committed to the fire, yet his books at least containing such blasphemous stuff, to be burnt. Which if he shall deem fit, sure Paul's Epistles, unless Pareus be much mistaken, must go the same way. Or if he shall be of another mind concerning these blessed men, whether it be not extreme partiality, to let that go for sound doctrine in M. Fox, Perkins, Pareus and Pemble, that in M. Wotton's writings without further ado, upon M. Walkers bore relating of it, must be condemned for blasphemous heresy.  
Secondly, I desire to have it considered, whether it were equal to censure a man for an heretic, upon bare positions or sayings extracted out of his writings, without any regard had to, or notice taken of, his own Expositions of them; or his Reasons alleged to prove his dissent in them from the errors of those whom he is charged to concur with; confirmed by collation of place with place in his writings, and by consideration of the main scope and drift of the dispute, course and tenor of the discourse, and the different sense and meaning of the words and terms used by either. For example, M. Walker in his parallel allegeth a saying of Servetus, (and that is all that he hath out of him throughout his whole Parallel) that 
q Parall. Error. 4.  For one act of Faith was Abraham righteous. And presuming that M. Wotton saith the very same, (though he allege not any one place at all out of M. Wotton, where these words are found) from hence concludeth, that M. Wotton and Servetus do in the doctrine of justification hold one and the same opinion in all points. Now suppose we that the very selfsame words were found in M. Wotton's writings: and again, that that saying in Servetus were condemned, yea and that justly, for heretical: yet were it therefore agreeable to equity, without further disquisition, to pass sentence thereupon, that M. Wotton & Serv●tus do in all things hold the same opinion in the point of justification? yea or, that in those very words they speak the same thing? when it may easily be made evidently to appear, that Servetus speaketh of justification in one sense, and M. Wotton intreateth of justification in another sense: and that neither the Faith, nor the Righteousness, nor the manner of imputation of Righteousness, that they speak of in their writings are the same. That which any may soon see, that shall read 
r Relat. Postsc●. p. 46.  the sum of Servetus his discourse, related out of Calvin in my postscript. Surely by the same reason might M. Walker prove S. Paul and Servetus to be both of them in all things of one mind concerning the doctrine of justification; because 
s Relat. postscr. p 46.  Servetus saith, that Abraham's believing was imputed unto him for righteousness: and S. Paul expressly in so many 
t Rom. 4 3. 9  words saith the same. Or that Musculus agreeth with Servetus in all things for the matter of justification; because he saith in nearer terms to Servetus, than any M. Walker allegeth out of M. Wotton; that 
u Ubi promittenti Deo f●…miter credidit, est illi ejusmodi si●●s loco justitiae imputata; hoc est, Ob ca●a Fidem justu● est a Deo reputatus. Muscal. in Gen. 16. 6.  Abraham for that faith of his was of God reputed just. Yea take away all benefit of Exposition, and who almost may not be condemned of heresy and blasphemy? For example: He that shall mention God's 
x Psal. 8. 3. 6.  hands and 
y Psal. 74. 3.  feet; as concurring with the Audians, 
z Epiphan. haer. 70. §. 2. Aug. de haeres. c 49.  who held that God had the shape, limbs, and lineaments of a man: he that shall affirm, with the Evangelist, or with Christ himself rather, that 
a John 14. 28.  the Father is greater than he; as consenting to the Arians; 
b Epiph. haer. 69. §. 17. Aug. de haeres. c. 49.  who maintained an inequality among the Persons in the Trinity. And here I shall crave of M. Walker and my Reader to tell a story or two: it is the humour of old men (such as M. Walker and myself) to be now and then telling of tales. I remember, that, while I abode at Lincolns-Inne, the night before Legate the Arian appeared in the Bishop's Consistory at Paul's, (of whose being in trouble I then knew nothing) there came to my chamber there, at a very unseasonable hour, a Gentlemanlike man; who having knocked at the door, asked to speak with me; and entrance afforded him, reached me a little scroll, wherein were these words written, Whether was the Godhead of Christ begotten of the Godhead of the Father from all eternity? and withal desired me to give mine opinion, whether that were not an error? I required to know first what the meaning of the party was, that held or affirmed it. He answered me, According to that in the Creed, 
c Creed of Constantinople, commonly called the Nicene Creed.  God of God, light of light. I told him, that these were not the words there used: and that to speak properly, the Godhead was not said, either to beget, or to be begotten. If the party's meaning were, that Christ being God was begotten of the Father, who is likewise God from all eternity; the sense were sound, but the speech improper. Then belike, as it is there written, quoth he, it is an error. As the words sound, replied I, it is: yet it may be not, in his sense that spoke it. He requested me to give him that under my hand. I craved his name. He told me, I must excuse him for that. I told him, he should likewise excuse me for this. And so we parted. But the next day, hearing Legate in the Consistory, as I passed thorough Paul's, I began to surmise, that this party might be some friend of his; and that some Divine or other, in conference with him having let some such speech slip from him, this party his friend might beat about to get under some other Divines hands the censure of it as an error. Whence I then gathered, that a man had need to be wary, how he condemn a man of error, of heresy much more, upon a bare relation of words, before he understand what his meaning is. Again, I remember, that a busy Separatist being committed to Newgate, and there arrogantly challenging to dispute with all comers, and scornfully playing upon and gibing at such as dealt with him; M Bradshaw (whom we shall find M. Walker anon grinning at) was by some friends brought to him; who perceiving the man's spirit, and having had some discourse with him, the issue whereof he caused to be set down in writing under both their hands, that he might not talk of this and that, after they were parted; M. Bradshaw a little to repress his insolency, told him, that for all his prating so much of the Constitution of a Church, (the common subject of such men's disputes) yet his skill peradventure might be but mean in the main principles of religion. And being by him provoked to make trial, if he pleased; he demanded of him, whether Christ's Deity assumed the Person of man or no. To which question the bold bayard without stop or stay returning an affirmative answer, that it did, M. Bradshaw told him, it was gross heresy. And so left him. And indeed, if the words alone be regarded, so it is; even the heresy of Nestorius, 
d Isidar. Origin. l. 7. c. 5. Socrat. bistor. l. 7. c. 23. Euagr. l. 1. c. 7.  who maintained two-people in Christ, not two natures in one person. And yet neither do I, nor did M. Bradshaw hold the silly fellow to be an heretic; no more than 
e Onuphr in vita Ius 3. Pp. Dr. Field of the Church, l. 2. c. 9 & l. 3. c. 1. Breerwood of Relig. & Langrug c. 25. p. 183.  those that bear the name of Nestorians in the Eastern parts, are deemed so to be at this day. And indeed take men's words apart from their meaning, and how many shall be ranked, though in judgement never so sound and orthodox, among heretics, as concurring with such, because the same words and sentences are found in either? To clear this a little, consider we an instance or two, Salvian Bishop of Marseiles, a very pious and learned ancient Writer, saith, that 
f Aio. Christian non solum egere cam caeteru sed multo plus egere quam caeteros. sunt enim quibus et si desiat multa, non desunt omnia. Chris●us tantummodò solus est, cui nihil est, quod in emni humano g●n●re non desit. Salvi an. ad Eccl. Cathol. l. 4.  Our Saviour Christ is the greatest beggar in the World. Meaning it of the poverty, which he sustaineth 
g Non eget mi●●riâ, sed eget misericorata; no eget ●eitate prose, sed eget pietate pro suis. Ibid.  not in himself, but in his, in the several members of his body mystical, or spiritual rather, here upon earth. shall he be hold therefore to concur in opinion with Pope Nicolas 3. and those other 
h Sext Decretal. de verb. si●g 〈◊〉. exi● t.  who maintained, that our Saviour Christ was a very beggar indeed, and lived here in the very lowest degree of beggary that can be; which Pope john 22. 
i Extr. de ve● sign. c. Ad condi etc. Quia quorard●….  condemneth for an heresy? Again Luther, in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians, saith, that 
k Christus summus & maximus peccator. Luth. in Gal. 3. 13. p. 459. quo nullus major in mun. do. Ib. p. 453.  Christ was the greatest sinner in the World; meaning it, in regard of 
l Omnium hominum peccata omnia in se suscep●. lbid. p. 458. & 453. P●rsonam 〈◊〉 ●●ndam gerendam ●…pit; ●…que reus factus est peccaterum totius mu●di. 〈◊〉. p. 4●6.  the sins of all the faithful, which he took upon himself, and were reckoned as his. And we read of one Austen of Rome, Archbishop of Nazareth, who maintained some assertions, not unlike that of Luther, to wit, that 
m Christus quatid●● peccat: & ex quo fuit Christus, quotid●… p●… it. Aug. d. Rom. de sacram. Christ. & Eccles. l. 1.  Christ sinneth daily, and ever so did. Understanding what he sp●ke, 
n Nod, ●e capite, sed de membris, que cum Christo capite, sunt unus Christus. Idem.  of the body of the faithful, who being 
o Rom. 8. 1. & 16. 7.  in Christ, and 
p 1 Cor. 6. 17. Omnes Sancti & fideles cum homine Christo sunt unus Christus. Aug. de pecc. mer. & rem. l. 1. c. 31. Caput enim & corpus unus est Christus. Idem de Trmit. l. 4. c. 9 & in Ps. 54. & de verb. Dom. 49. & 65. Bed. in joan, 17. Bern. ●p. 190. Christus cum totâ suâ Ecclesia, una persona est. Greg. in Ps. paen 5.  one with Christ, have the Name of Christ sometimes given them 
q Gal. 3. 16. 1 Cor. 12. 12.  in Scripture. The speeches, I confess, are both overharsh; and the Archbishop was for his taxed in the 
r Conc. Basil. sess. 22.  Council of Basil. Yet were it no less harsh or hard, to condemn either of them, as concurring in judgement with those blasphemous Pharisees, that 
s John 9 24.  said our Saviour Christ was a sinner; though the words were the same with either. Yea to ad only one instance more: S. john himself faith, that 
t 1 Joh. 5. 18.  No regene rate man doth sin; 
u 1 Joh. 3. 9  nor can sin. And yet who dares be so bold as to say, that S. john therefore concurreth either with the old 
x Epipban. her. 59 § 6.  Cathari, or with the late Familists, who dreaming of an absolute perfection in this life, do 
y H. N. Terri Pacis c. 34. & 36. I. R. of Family of Love, D. 5, 6.  of their illuminate and regenerate ones say the same?  
In regard hereof, a man may precisely relate an other man's words; and yet be a slanderer, a false accuser, a false witness. For example; that I may refresh my Reader a little with some matter of more abstruse learning, (yet other men's, not mine own; lest M. Walkers tongue again lash me) and 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ex Platone Plut. Symp●s. l. 7. c. 5. & 8. & de esu carn. l. 2. & Greg. Stas. de Martyr. & add jul. exact.  season therewith somewhat this not very savoury discourse. Suppose we, that those persons, 
b Math. 26. 61. Mark 14. 58.  that were deposed against our Saviour, had given in his precise words, as he himself spoke them, without addition, detraction or alteration of aught, Dissolve this Temple, and within three days, I will re-edify it; understanding and affirming it (as it seems they did, and as 
d John 2. 10.  the Jews that heard him took it) to have been spoken not as he meant and intended it (pointing in likelihood, when he spoke, to it) 
f John 2. 21.  of the Temple of his body, 
g John 1. 14. Col. 2. 9  wherein 
John 2. 19  his Deity dwelled; but of the Temple of Lime and Stone, built by Herod, of which they spoke when they said, 
h John 2. 20.  Forty and six years hath this Temple been building, as the words may well be translated: and 
i Uideantar jos. Scaliger de Emendat. Temp. l. 6. p. 534, 535. Phil. Lansberg. Chronol. sacr. l. 3. c. 18. Tho. Lydiat. Emend. Temp. A. M. 3991, & 4037.  so long by just computation it is by some deemed, that it had then been in building, and 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, joseph. antiq. l. 20 c. 8. Gr. 17. Lat. ad Albinum abitu●…ntem, circiter quadriennium ante excidium.  the former. And indeed it may seem by 
n Math. 24. 1. Mark 13. 1, 2. Ios●ph. antiq. l. 15. c. 14. & belli 1. l. 7. c. 26, 27. Gr. Lat. 12. vide Ri●…n. 45. etc.  was not yet fully finished: and of which 
l Hieron. in Hagg. 2. Chrysost. in 1 Cor. orat. 34. Fr. Ribera in Hagg. 〈◊〉. n. 37-52.  some understand, not without some good ground of probability, those words of the Prophet, 
m Hagg. 2. 8, 9  Silver is mine, and Gold is mine; or, Of Silver and Gold I have store enough; The glory of this latter house shall be greater than the glory of the relation of those that saw it, that the 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  second house, as the Jews term it, (which though demolished by Herod, yet still bare that name, because there was no interruption or intermission by occasion thereof of 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dan. 8. 11, 〈◊〉▪  the daily solemn sacrifice) was by that 
q jos. ant. l. 15. c. 14.  magnificent King built up again in more stately manner, then by Solomon it was built at first. Now suppose, I say, these men, that were suborned to accuse our Saviour, had in their evidence to a syllable given in his own words, and had agreed in their testimony, as 
r Mark 14. 59  they did not; had they been ever a whit the less false-witnesses therefore? I trow, not. And here I cannot let pass, as notorious, and yet as gross and palpable a calumny as ever I read or heard of, of that Romish sycophant, that wrote against that acute and nimbleheaded defender of The safe way to salvation by Protestants Religion; a work, which for the main substance of it, as it opposeth Popery, I look not to see answered by that side in haste, however they nibble at some passages here and there in it, and snarl at the Author. He renders you the Author's words to an heir, not a word, not a syllable, not a letter, not a point, not a title, detracted, added, altered, or displaced. No man that reads the Jesuit, having not M. Chillingsworths' book by him, but would verily believe, he had uttered and meant, the thing spoken, of himself. For thus they run in his Relation, 
s I. H. Christianity maintained chap. 9 § 3. p. 66.  This man (to wit, M. G. C.) speaks so irreligiously sometimes, that it may give just occasion for men to inquire what he believes concerning the Divinity of our Saviour Christ; as when he saith, 
t Preface n. 8.  that the doctrine of Transubstantiation may bring a great many others, as well as himself to Averro his resolution; Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum Philosophis; seeing Christians adore what they eat, my soul be with the Philosophers. Which having recited, he begins to debate the matter with the Author, as having said thus of himself. 
u I H. Ibid. p. 66  Is this matter of eating our Saviour such a pill to your understanding, that rather than digest it, you will turn Turk or Infidel? If you believed indeed that our Saviour Christ is truly God, you would not be scondalized, that Christians adore him who would and could be eaten, no more than him who stood in need of eating, and whom the jews might have eaten, even in a Capharnaiticall and savage manner if it had been his will to permit it: 
x Ibid. p. 67.  Perhaps for these reasons, having subjected Faith to reason, you wish with Averro a processed enemy of Christians, My soul be with the Philosophers. Whereas let any man but lightly cast his eye upon the Authors own discourse; and the knavery will at the very first sight, without further enquiry, evidently discover itself. His words are these, 
y G. C. Preface to the Author of Charity maintained, num. 8.  I should desire you to tell me ingenuously, whether it be not too probable, that your portentous doctrine of Transubstantiation, joined with your forementioned persuasion of, No papists, no Christians, hath brought a great many others as well as himself to Averro his resolution, Quandoquidem Christiani adorant, quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum Philosophis. You see the Authors own words exactly retained, precisely reported; and yet that resolution thence gathered, and therein fathered and fastened upon the Author, than which he nothing less there either uttered or intended. Which the rather I recite here, partly to show the desperate shamelessness of those of that faction, not regarding what lies and falsehoods they report as out of our Writers, though the books repaired to may presently convince them of gross untruth; (of which their practice examples not a few might be produced) and partly to manifest how exactly for words men may carry themselves in this kind, and yet not escape the just censure of fals-witnesbearers, and unjust slanderers of their brethren.  
Lastly, to come full home to ourselves; as he may be a false-witness, who yet relateth a man's own words: so jury and judge may both be unjust, though upon a man's own words, the one cast him, and the other condemn him; excluding his exposition, and either perverting or mistaking his meaning; witness (to go no further, but content ourselves therewith) those 
* Io. Speed in Ed●…. 4. § 3.  that cast and condemned our poor Countryman, a Citizen and Grocer of London, one of M. Walkers name, in King Edward the fourth's time, as guilty of no less than high treason (for which also he was executed) for saying, he would make his child, if he plied his book, heir to the Crown: thereby meaning no other than his own dwelling house at the sign of the Crown in Cheapside, commonly known and called by that name. Nor, I suppose, could we justly have escaped that censure; should we, as M. Walker here would have us, upon his bare reading of M. Wotton's words to us, without all further examination of them, or hearing of him, have proceeded to condemn him of heresy and blasphemy; that is, no less, as I take it, then high Treason against the highest Majesty.  
But thus much may suffice, if not more then sufficient, to evince the iniquity and inequality of M. Walkers here pretended request. Which yet he was not so unreasonable then as to motion or mention; much less to press upon us, being then somewhat more reasonably minded, then (it seems) he now is: and which, had he pressed upon us, as now he saith that he did, had been most unequal and unjust for us to have granted.  
13. As far from truth as the former, are those things that in M. Walkers narration next follow: to wit, that 
a Vindicat. p. 20, 21.  at an other day M. Wotton brought his Expositions; whereas in truth his Answers which he calls his Expositions (the same word for word that by his son have since been published) were delivered in at the same time together with M. Walkers Parallels, as at first was appointed, that 
b Pag. 21.  he desiring to argue with M. Wotton face to face against them in strict Syllogisms, he refused to answer him; and their judges refused to hear him, or to suffer him to have a Copy of them, as M. Wotton had of his Parallels. All which is most untrue. For neither did M. Wotton ever refuse to answer M. Walker, offering any orderly dispute: (which how well M. Walker is acquainted with, those that have had dealings with him in this kind, or have read his writings, may soon see) nor did their judges (as he calleth them, but very partial and unjust ones, it seems, all of them; and it is well, that herein we suffer all alike from him) refuse to hear him alleging aught, whereby he might make his charge good. Nor was he by them ever denied a Copy of M. Wotton's answer; which neither we had ourselves, no more than his Parallel, nor was at any time by him demanded of us.  
14. Yet what he addeth here, I confess, is in part true; that when he saw he could not have his own will, nor deter us from acknowledging under our hands, that we found neither heresy, nor blasphemy, in aught, that he had evinced M. Wotton to hold; 
c Pag. ●1.  he went away in a rage; yet, not threatening (as here he reporteth) to bring him and us before higher Judges; (he came not as yet to so high terms with us; and is herein therefore not unlike some debauched persons, who to increase their own shame, will 
d Fingunt, que vera negarent, Dum credi, quod non contigit esse, volunt.  vaunt many times of more evil than ever they did) but not without intimation, that we did more than we could answer in taking upon us to determine heresy; (or to tell, belike, what we thought to be, or not to be such) having forgotten, it seems, his own motion at first, and what himself had requested us to meet about: just as if a party appeaching his neighbour of wrong doing, and having pressed him to refer the matter between them to Arbitrators jointly agreed on; should, when he perceived them inclining to acquit his neighbour of the pretended wrong, demand of them, whether they would take upon them to decide right and wrong: and yet why might not we do as much as Walker himself had done? for how did not he take upon him to determine what was heresy, when he charged M. Wotton with it? Nor again, is it untrue, that afterward he endeavoured to have us called in question for our meeting, though by himself procured. Insomuch that the Bishop of London, in regard of his importunate exclaiming against us, did at first pretend to doubt of, yea in a manner deny his giving way to it; until being minded of the 
e Relat. p. 6.  motion made for one of his Chaplains to be a party in the business, and his condescending thereunto, he could not but agnize it.  
But that which followeth; and, if M. Walker in his Narration observe any due order, should be done after his departure, and so in his absence; to wit; that 
f V●…. p. 21.  M. Wotton should promise to make & publish a large Declaration, wherein he would free himself from all Socinian errors; and in the mean space begged this favour, that they would subscribe to his expositions, that they found no heresy or blasphemy in them; and that upon this promise and entreaty they did subscribe, as followeth, etc. To which is a little after added, that 
g Pag. 24.  M. Wotton begged this beggarly subscription; (which sticketh shrewdly in his stomach; as well it may) and that M. Gataker procuredit. All this, I say, hath little or no truth in it. Neither did M. Wotton make any such promise. Nor did he beg our censure to be given under our hands, as a favour; but required it, as a thing just and equal. Nor was it by me procured; unless giving my vote among the rest for the grant of it, may be so construed. Nor was it upon any such promise condescended unto, as is here pretended. And M. Walker certainly had very long ears, if being absent at the doing of it, he could hear what was then and there said: or a quicker ear than the rest of the company, if being present, he heard that, that some, I am sure, and the rest, I verily believe, never heard, and yet might have heard as well as he, had it been spoken.  
Howbeit I must here request the reader to take notice of one point of cunning conveyance, in the relation of the form subscribed, whether committed by the Doctor, from whom he saith he had it, (though he might have seen it, and had it from us, if he had pleased to stay our subscribing) or by M Walker himself, I know not; and I would be loath to charge him further than I have good ground: He telleth his Reader, that 
h Pag. 21.  M. Wotton begged of us to subscribe to his Expositions, and the subscription itself he thus layeth down 
i Ibid.  Howsoever we whose names are underwritten, do differ from M. Wotton in some Point of the former doctrine of justification contained in these his Expositions; yet we hold not the difference to be so great and weighty, as they are to he justly condemned of heresy and blasphemy. And again he subjoineth, 
k Ibid.  The expositions thus subscribed. Whereas it is testified 
l See Relat. p. 38.  under the hands of two of his own Delegates, that in the subscription given under our hands, it was not Expositions but Positions. Howsoever Positions come now to be turned into Expositions; by what or whose hand I wot not; and this latter be now pressed, to give some sorry colour to 
m Vindic. p. 20.  M. Walkers late devised shift before mentioned, and there sufficiently discussed, of dealing with M. Wotton's Positions, and not his expositions. Which, albeit it will little avail M. Walker, unless he can show, that his Expositions are such, as either his words will not bear, or are not consonant to the scope and tenor of his discourse; yet what was then subscribed, the subscribers themselves witness. And as for the Copy, which 
n Pag. 22.  he saith, he hath yet to show; unless he can produce the original, that their own hands are too; I hope, this yet to be seen under the hands of some of them, and those of M. Walkers own party, (the like whereunto also can be produced under the hands of some of the other side) will with any man indifferently affected carry the more credit: especially considering, that M. Walker would make men believe that they did very unwillingly, what therein they did; and were afterward ashamed of what they had done: and had reason therefore to mince it all that possibly they might.  
15. It is 
o Damna●i ubi jam jure sese sense●…t sontes, iniquos conqueruntur judices. Sons nemo sese jure damn●tum volet.  the usual manner of delinquents, (for under that head may be comprehended, as well those that unjustly appeal others, as those that by others are justly appealed) when they fail and are found faulty, to complain of their judges, and exclaim against them, for their iniquity and partiality in the carriage of the business; by impairing their credit, seeking to salve up their own. The very same course doth M. Walker take throughout this whole, not so much Vindication of himself, as Crimination of those, whom himself had referred his cause unto. He vilifies them in terms of scorn and reproach, 
p Vindic. p. 4.  M. Gataker and his fellows, and his fellow subscribers. He accuseth them of iniquity, partiality, unjust and unequal carriage, against their own judgement, and consequently against their own conscience. Or, if a man would speak in M. Walkers wont language, as 
q G. W. Letter to A. W. Vind. p. 15.  wicked judges, that have respect of persons in judgement; yea, worse than 
r Luke 18. 2.  the unjust Judge in the Gospel, that neither feared God, nor regarded man: for 
s Luke 18. 5.  he by the poor widow's importunity was drawn to do her right; whereas 
t Pag. 21.  they by M. Wotton's importunity were induced to do M. Walker wrong, and to acquit him of heresy & blasphemy, whom M Walker had justly accused of either; and that against their own knowledge, yea their own acknowledgement, when they both knew and acknowledged him to be guilty of either.  
Howbeit a little to wipe off these foul aspersions again, he saith, 
u Pag. 4.  they did it, out of their great love to M. Wotton's person: and 
x Pag. 22.  the better part of them, notwithstanding M. Wotton's importunity, would never have yielded thereunto, but upon his promise of reformation. Concerning which I shall not need to repeat what I have formerly related. Tho what reformation M. Walker here speaketh of, I do not well understand. For, as for those points, wherein M. Wotton and they differed, which they pronounce to be neither heretical nor blasphemous; neither did they require M. Wotton to renounce and revoke his opinion therein; nor did he promise so to do. And what else it was, that he should promise to reform, I know not. This may well therefore go among M. Walkers own fancies; and so let it pass. Only, for what he saith of 
y Pag. 4.  their great love to M. Wotton; I will presume, they did all bear a Christian affection, as well to M. Wotton as to M. Walker, and to M. Walker as well as to him. Nor is that any sufficient ground to induce any man to believe, that they should therefore incline rather to the one then to the other. Howbeit M. Walker must be remembered, that Dr. Bailiff at the very first showed little good will to M. Wotton, by his quarrelling with him about his habit, as before was showed. And much less, by his rash and overhasty ●ensure and sentence passed (if M. Walker may be believed) upon him yet unheard. As also that there had been a breach and interruption of friendly correspondence between M. Wotton and M. Stock, as was before intimated; which grew upon occasion of some difference, that rose first between them at a meeting of divers London Ministers and some others about the beginning of King James his Reign, and as yet continued; nor indeed was ever well peeced up again: whereas between M. Walker and M. Stock, it was then otherwise. Nor have I heard of any great familiarity, that ever was between M. Wotton and M. Randall. Which then also the rather might be the less: for that at the Conference abovementioned, that occasioned the breach between M. Stock and M. Wotton, M. Wotton and M. Randal were likewise divided. And little reason therefore there is to presume, that these men out of great love to M. Wotton should be so partial in his cause: much less, that they should therefore give a sentence in favour of him, directly against their own judgements, and that either privately or publicly professed to the contrary.  
16. But this is the salve for those, whom M. Walker would excuse. As for the rest, it is not to be mervelled, if they were partial in the business. For 
a Pag. 24.  M. Balmford was M. Wotton's silenced brother. (a fit squib to fall from the pen of him, that 
b Pag. 1.  erewhile complained so of his own persecution) 
c Pag. 24.  M Hicks was one of M. Wotton's Disciples; one that would jurare in verba magistri; that is in plain English, One that would swear whatsoever M. Wotton his Master would say. (a most uncharitable censure, sure enough, for the latter part; whither true or no, for the former) and 
d Ibid.  M. Gataker did more angrily and peevishly speak against him, and snarl at him, than his Adversary M. Wotton himself. So that he was forced to challenge him as well as M. Wotton, and to offer to dispute against them both: that which once 
e Pag. 5.  before also he vaunted of, calling in some to witness it: (whom yet because he doubted of, as well he might do, whether they would say with him somewhat more than was true; he thought good by way of caution, to insert that exception, if their memories fail them not; as belike in delivery of the Attestation they did) and withal adding, that we both (daunted it seems, and dashed clean out of countenance, as conscious of our own weakness and inability to encounter such a Champion, either severally or jointly) did cowardly refuse it, not without show of scornful disdain.  
It is true indeed, that M Wotton (whom M. Walker is yet content in part to acquit, so be he may thereby the deeper wound me, whom his spite, it seems, is more eagerly bend at for the present) demeaned himself very moderately, throughout the whole hearing; with great patience enduring much reproachful and despiteful language, whereof M. Walker was no whit sparing. And, I suppose, it was fit, that those whom that office was committed unto, should endeavour to repress such clamorous ballings and barkings, as neither beseemed him that used them; nor did any way further, but hinder rather the issue of that for which we met. In which kind, not I alone, but the rest also, laboured with M. Walker what they could; though to small purpose. But that I snarled at him otherwise, is altogether untrue.  
It is likewise true, that M. Walker challenged me once to dispute. (for, as for dispute with M. Wotton, so he would keep to the point, it was never denied him) upon this occasion. Some speech coming in the way, in discussion of the first pretended error, concerning the imputation of Christ's Righteousness consisting in obedience to the Law; and justification consisting wholly in Remission of sins; 
* Ibid.  M. Walker in his heat told me, that it was reported (for he buildeth much upon reports) that I was wholly therein of Piscator's mind: and if I would maintain Piscator's opinion, he would dispute it out with me. Whereunto I then answered, that whether it were so, or no, was nothing to him; nor was it time for him and me then to dispute; being met for an other end. And this is also all the scornful disdain then used, or made show of. As for the report, I shall make bold now to tell M. Walker, if he heard so, that he heard an untruth; as 
e In Elenchs' disput. Fr. Gomari: & Disceptatione cum Lud. Lucio.  what I have published, may inform him. Against which, if he shall think good to dispute, I hope I shall be as well able to answer him, as I have done some others already.  
Howbeit suppose we, that M. Walker (
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aristot. Ethic. E●…dem. l. 7. c. 12. Pausan. Phocic. Plut. Thes. Laert. Cleanth AElian. Hist. var. l. 12. c. 22. Hephaest. nov. Hist. l. 5. apud Phot. cod. 190. Ephipp. Pelt. apud Athen. l. 7. Zenob. adag. 548. Varro. satire.  another Hercules, or one rather more valiaut than he, that durst not deal 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ne Hercules quidem adversus duos. Zenob. adag. 549. Suid. 1116. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plat. Phaed. & Euthyd. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem. leg. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aristid de ●betor, 2. Eccles. 4. 12.  with two at once) could by dint of Argument, wherein (it seems) he supposeth himself to excel; though some deem him, (as one sometime of another, whom M. Walker would seem much to admire) 
h Guil. Tilen. de Si●r. Lub.  a man more eager than argumentative, have been able to silence both M. Wotton and myself; and to have proved against us both, not those Points alone that he charged M. Wotton with, (which yet if he had done, he must have confuted us all, and many more than us all) but all the Positions that ever he had produced, or could produce out of M. Wotton's writings, to be erroneous and not agreeable to truth: yet would not all this have been sufficient to make good his charge against M. Wotton, and to prove him a blasphemous heretic. How many men's writings may more than seven times seven errors be found in, whom it were yet most uncharitable therefore to censure for such?  
17. But that divers of the Subscribers subscribed against their own judgements and consciences; and all of them were ashamed of what they had done; he endeavoureth further to show: the former, by some relations that may justly be questioned; the latter by avouchment of things altogether untrue.  
The former concerns others not me, whereof some are deceased; some yet survive: and is to this effect:  
1. That 
h Pag. 22.  D. Bailiff, the first of the subscribers did upon the very first reading of M. Wotton's speeches in M. Walkers Parallel, condemn him (not at our meeting, but at a private Table at dinner) for an heretic, and his errors for blaspemous. Of which sufficient hath been spoken already; and but for M. Walkers repetition of it here, to descredit the subscription, or the subscriber himself rather, had for me no more been mentioned.  
2. That 
l Ibid.  M. Downham, who heard this his censure uttered at the Table; did by his silence assent thereunto. Of which somewhat also before.  
3. That 
k Ibid.  D. Gouge hath publicly confuted M. Wotton's opinions; (but which or what of them he talleth us not: 
* Parallel. Point. or Error 2. Relat. p. 13. 36.  one of them at least, I am sure, he professed to have taught.) and in the Pulpit condemned them of Socinianism. These two latter survive; and I leave to answer, as they shall see good and think fit, for themselves; the Attestation for the Subscription to the contrary being under their own hands.  
4. That 
l Ibid.  M. Randal did argue very hotly against M. Wotton's opinions that same day that they subscribed, and told him before us all, that he had protested against them often in private, and had dissuaded him from them; and that he for his part abhorred them. All which men may, if they please, believe, upon the bare word of him, who hath told his Reader so many untruths here before. For my part I believe no one tittle of it to be true, as it is by M. Walker here related; that is, affirmed to have been then and there by M. Randal delivered; but a mere fiction of M. Walkers own invention, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plut. de Isid. & Osir.  spun like a spider's web out of the bowels of his own brain. Besides, I desire to have it considered how probable it is, that M. Wotton should make choice of one to be for him in this business, who had in private formerly professed unto him, not a bare dissent from, or a simple distaste, but so deep a dislike of his opinions. True it is, that there was that day a dispute among us about a nice question mentioned in my 
m Relat. p. 35, 36.  Relation, concerning the work of Redemption performed by Christ, and the work of our Insition into Christ and our union with him, whether of the twain hath the precedency in the order of nature. Wherein some were with M. Wotton on the one side for the precedency of the work of redemption; some were on the other side (among whom M. Randal) for the precedency of the Insition of the faithful into Christ and their union with him. But neither was the point argued with any heat at all on either side; among ourselves at least. Nor did either M. Randal, or any other of the company, no not D. Bailiff himself, (though forward enough, if M. Walker may be believed, to censure M. Wotton deep enough behind his back, and over prone, as I have showed, to pick a quarrel to him otherwise) at any time, that ever I can remember, during our whole meeting, use any such distasteful speeches unto M. Wotton, as M. Walker is here pleased to attribute to M. Randal, being now gone, and not able to deny or avow, what he fasteneth thus upon him. The figure 
n Fictio personae.  Prosopopaeia, it is to be feared, is with M Walker here too frequent.  
5. That 
o Pag. 22.  M. Stock did ever abhor M. Wotton's opinions, as he oft told M. Walker in private.  
That he did in divers things descent from him, I doubt not; that which I also professed in private to him concerning myself; showing wherein I dissented from M. Wotton, as well to him, as to M. Wotton himself, having sometime required it of me in writing; which to M. Stock also I imparted. But such terms of abhorring them, I never heard from him; though being as intimate, I suppose, as ever M. Walker was, with him. The phrase sure better suiteth with M. Walkers own spirit, then either with M. Randall or M. Stocks; both whom he maketh here to speak in the same tone with himself.  
But 
p Pag. 22, 23.  by a pretty stratagem (for so he slileth it) he brought M. Stock before other witnesses to condemn M. Wotton's opinions for heresy and blasphemy. For at a supper time in a neighbour's house, reading as out of some other paper containing new and strange opinions, that assertion of M. Wottons, that in this proposition, Faith is counted for Righteousness, the word Faith is to be taken properly, not tropically; and demanding of M Stock what he thought of it, M. Stock acknowledged it to be heresy and blasphemy; and that none but mad men would subscribe that it was neither. Whereupon he showed him his own hand to the subscription before mentioned.  
Now whether M. Stock was thus overtaken or no, to make his tongue and his hand jar, I know not. If he were, it had been a more friendly part of M. Walker, to have concealed his and my friend's oversight. But 
q Maro AE●. l. 1.  Tros Tyriusve, friend or foe; Advocate or Adversary; all is one with M. Walker; another Aristides, one that hath no respect of persons, as his partial Judges had. how he disgraceth either any way to help himself, he little regardeth. as if the discrediting of them either would suffice, or might well serve to salve his own credit, when it lieth bleeding, and is in danger not to escape without some scar.  
Howsoever, 1. I shall desire any indifferent reader to consider, whether ought rather to sway, a censure drawn from one by a wile, and suddenly shot out, before he were well aware, and well advised; or a judiciary sentence (for 
r Pag. 21.  judges M. Walker himself will have us) considerately signed; and that after serious debate, and advice taken with other 
s Pag. 2.  grave Ministers (as he is also pleased yet to style us) concurring with him therein.  
2. I would demand not of M. Stock, (for he is gone; nor is it certain to me, whether he ever passed that censure so directly contrary to his own subscription) but of M. Walker, what he thinks of these words, Faith is that alone wherewith we are by itself and properly justified: whether they contain heresy and blasphemy or no; and what difference he can find between M. Wotton's words, and these. Yet are they M. Bucers own 
t Illo per se ac propriè justificamur, quod dum adest nobis, & Deus & homines nos justos pronunciant, dum abest, injustos. Fides illud unum est, quo si polleamus, Deus & homines n●s inter justos numerant; sin minus, inter injustos. Ergo, etc. Bucer. praefat. Enarrat. Epist. Paul. c. 7. § 1. Syllog. 1.  which he ascribeth also to Saint Paul; as a principal part of his main Argument, concerning the doctrine of justification. And if those other upon the bare recital appear to be manifestly heretical and blasphemous; then these surely no less: and so M. Wotton yet shall have one other at least to go along with him for an heretic, yea a blasphemous heretic: whom yet none I suppose, other than rank Papists ever condemned for such.  
Howbeit M. Walker should have done well, to have delivered M. Wotton's Exposition (as he termeth it) all out. and not to have hacked it off (as he hath done) by the hams. For his words are entire thus, 
a Ans. to Err. 3. Relat. p. 27,  I never said, or thought, that Faith doth justify us by itself. (and yet had he so said, he had said no more than Bucer long before him had done) This only I say, that in this Proposition, Faith is counted for Righteousness, the word Faith is to be taken properly, not tropically; the question being in such propositions, not of the meritorious or formal cause of justification, but of the condition required on our part in stead of keeping the Law. To which I may well add out of his Animadversions, which I have by me, on the dispute between Lubbertus and Bertius, these sayings of his to the same essect. 
b Fides, tanquam qualitas, habitualiter non justificat; ncque m●teria est justificatinonis nostrae, neque forms: e● solâ ratione ad justificationem valet, quod in Christum recumbat, ad veniam delictorum propter ipsius obedientiam adipiscendam Ad dissert. 1. § 9  Faith doth not justify us, as a quality, habitually; neither is it either the matter, or the form of our Righteousness; in that regard alone it is to justification available, as it relieth upon Christ, to the obtaining of forgiveness of sins for his obedience. And again, 
c Fides certè non justificat, nisi tantum per & propter Christi obedientiam. Cum dicitur ad justitiam imputari, quid nos praestare oporteat, ut per Christum justificemur, significatur. Ibid.  Faith surely doth not justify, but only by and for the obedience of Christ. When it is said to be imputed unto righteousness, it is thereby signified what we must perform, that we may be justified. And a little after, 
d Fide justificari dicimur, non tropicâ, sed propriâ l●cutione: qu● significatur, fidem illud esse, quod Deus à nobis flagitat, ad justificationem conseqendam propter Christi ●bedientiam & sacrificium. Ibid.  By faith we are said to be justified, not in a tropical, but in a proper manner of speaking; whereby is signified, that Faith is that, which God requireth of us to the obtaining of justification for the obedience and sacrifice of Christ. For as for those words that M. Walker putteth into his third Error, that he chargeth upon M. Wotton, 
e Parall, Error. 3. Rela● p. 14:  That Faith doth not justify us, as it apprehendeth Christ and his righteousness; they appear not in any passage at all by M. Walker out of M. Wotton's writings alleged. So that M. Walker maketh M. Wotton speak, not what he doth, but what himself pleaseth; and then pronounceth him an heretic, not for what he saith, but for what himself would have him say. To make this evident to the meanest understanding. Should a man say, The word hand in this proposition, my hand feeds my body; or in this, This child is fed by hand, is taken properly not tropically; would it by any reasonable consequence thence be inferred, that the party so saying should therefore affirm, that the hand doth not feed by putting meat into the mouth? And what M calvin's judgement is of that trope in the Apostles words of Faith, put for Christ, may appear by these words of his in confuting of Osiander, the first man (for aught I can find) that broached that Exposition of them, and brought in that strange trope: 
f Neque tamen interea tortuosas bujus Sophis●● figurat admitto, quum dicit Eidem esse Christum. Calvin, jastitut. l. 3. c. 11. § 7.  I admit not this Sophisters writhing or wriggling some figures, when he saith, that faith is Christ. 
g Inscitè sidem, que instrumentum est duntaxat p●rcipiendae justitiae, dic● misceri cum Christo; qui materiaris causa, tantique beneficii autor simul est & minister. Ibid.  Whereby Faith, which is the instrument only of obtaining righteousness, is confounded with Christ, who is the material cause, and both the Author and minister of so great a benefit. 
h jam expeditus est nodus quomodo intelligi debeat vocabulum fide i, uhi de justificatione agitur. Ibid.  Thus is the knot also unknit, to wit, how the term of Faith ought to be taken where the point of justification is handled. Howbeit as it would justly be deemed unequal, to charge all that hold Faith there put for Christ, with Osianders' monstrous opinion, as Calvin well termeth it, of I know not what essential righteousness, by which Christian men are justified: so no less unequal is it, to condemn all of Socinian heresy and blasphemy, that hold Faith to be taken for Faith in those 
i Rom. 3. 28. & 5. 1. &. 4. 5, 〈…〉.  passages of S Paul. But of this and some other things concerning that argument, I may peradventure being by divers importuned thereunto, if God shall please to afford life, liberty, ability and leisure, entreat further more largely hereafter; unless I shall find myself prevented by some fuller satisfaction given by others, whose labours either are abroad already, or may before that time come abroad. for then my 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ma●c. Imp. l. 10. § 13.  pains will be superfluous. and whether by my weak helps, or the more able work of others, the truth of God either in this, or in any other point be cleared, to me it shall be all one.  
And thus much for the point, concerning which by M Walkers own relation, M. Stock upon the very reading of it, should in direct contradiction to his own subscription, pass such a censure. As for the 
l Vindic. p. 23.  speech he frameth in the words following, for M. Stock to excuse himself by: and his inference thence, 
m Ibid. p. 23, 24  how dangerous a thing it is, even for godly men to be Judges in a controversy between a familiar friend, as M. Wotton was to these men, and a stranger, as himself was to the most of them. As the latter intimateth M. Stock, & M. Wotton to have been at that time familiar friends, and so D. Bailiff and the rest; and on the other side M. Stock (for of him principally here the speech is) with the most of the rest, and M. Walker to have been mere strangers either to other: which is the one of them as true as the other: so it adds little credit to the excuse pretended to be made then by him; which may well be questioned, considering M. Walkers minting and dilating faculty 
n See M. egerton's Letter before produced: and his peicing up of M. Wotton's assertions.  before showed, whether much, if not all, of it, came not out of his own forge.  
And this shall suffice for the suggestions concerning some of M. Walkers partial and unjust Judges as he deems them, to prove that they subscribed in favour of M. Wotton against their own consciences and judgements elsewhere, either in public or in private, delivered directly to the contrary of that they then signed unto. Which I might well have left to be answered by those whom they concern; save that some of them are now deceased: for me they touch not at all, nor my Relation, who report only, what they subscribed to; and that firmed with the Attestation of such of them as survive.  
18. But for that, which concerns them all, and myself among the rest, to prove, that 
o Vindic. p. 21.  they durst not openly justify their Subscription; (which makes me the rather now to believe what I have formerly been informed, that M. Walker oft in his Table-talk should not stick to give out, that we were all of us ashamed of what we then did.) he saith that 
p Ibid.  the Expositions (for so we will now call them, since that M. Walker will have them so styled) thus subscribed, were committed to D. Eaylie, with charge that he should keep them close, and not suffer M. Walker or any other man to see or read them, until M. Wotton had made a larger Exposition, and fully purged himself from Socinianism. A strict charge, you see, as M. Walker delivers it, of men wondrous cautious, and as may seem, no less timorous of displeasing M. Walker; for what else the matter should be, ay, for my part, am not able to conceive. And I merveil why he doth not add, that we conjured one another, to tell no body what we had done. For that was as needful to prevent our fears, as the keeping of our subscription from sight; and he might as well have said or written the one as the other. For this also in truth is as far from truth, as M. Walker is from fair dealing in the whole carriage of this business. And here I would crave leave to demand of M. Walker, whether he were present at the very act of our subscribing or no. If he were present, he might easily hear, what that was, and in what manner it was conceived, that was agreed upon to be subscribed unto; yea he might have seen our subscriptions to it. For it was not done in any concealed way, but in the view of all then present. And to what end then should such a charge be given to the Doctor, that M. Walker should by no means be admitted to the sight of it? If he were absent, (as it is likely enough that he was, wanting patience to endure any longer stay, after he perceived once what was resolved upon) I would fain know of him, how or from whence he knows, that it was with such caution committed to the Doctor's custody.  
True it is, that it was indeed in some sort committed to his custody; or rather detained by him, having once gotten it into his hands, in favour of M. Walker, for aught else could be discerned. The delivery of it or a Copy of it to M. Wotton, according to his just request, being not at present resolved on, because it grew late; but put off to another day. On which meeting again, (but now without M. Walker, who came no more at us) after long expectation the Doctor at length presented himself to us; but could not be induced to deliver, either the subscription, or any Copy of it to M. Wotton; upon pretence that he held it not safe so to do; for that having been lately at Lambeth, at the High Commission, some (I know not who) had cast out some words there to him concerning our meeting, and that we might peradventure be questioned for it, as a Conventicle; especially if our subscription should come abroad under our own hands, and use made of it as an evidence against us. That therefore for the present he durst not part with it: But yet withal promising, that after some time, the noise of the business being once overblown, it should be delivered to M. Wotton, whensoever it should be demanded of him by two of the parties, one of either side, nominated in his behalf. And this I do the more confidently avow, being holpen therein for some particulars, by a memorial left in writing under M. Balmfords' hand and mine own, and made while the business was yet fresh in memory; which I find in the same paper, in which the Attestation formerly published is extant, being afterward (but how long after, I know not) underwritten.  
But return we to M. Walker, who having thus rather Poetically described, then 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tim●us. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polyh. l. 12.  Historically related our meeting and the manner of it, embellished with many mere fictions of his own invention; (all which yet never will be of might or weight enough either to take of, or bear down the truth of my Relation concerning the issue of it, acknowledged in precise terms by men of his own choice) he proceeds in the next place to tell us, that 
r Vindic. p. 24.  Upon this it was bruited abroad in the City by M. Wotton and his Disciples that M. Walker could prove nothing against him; (and like enough; of that he charged him with, to wit, heresy and blasphemy) nor bring any thing out of his books or writings to convince him of Socinianism: and that the eight learned Ministers had justified him, and condemned M. Walker for a false Accuser. And might they not justly so report, when in effect the Ministers under their hands had all jointly so done? For sure it is, that he that acquitteth any man of that wherewith he is charged, (be he faulty otherwise, or no) doth by necessary consequence condemn him as a false accuser, that so charged him.  
As for what 
s Ibid.  he adds, concerning M. Wotton's Essays afterward written, wherein he saith, that M. Wotton denies the true, real, and spiritual union of the faithful with Christ, and Christ's meriting of justification and salvation for them, etc. (which collections of M. Walkers from M. Wotton's words may well be as sound as some other above recited) and his own Antithesis Wottonismi & Christianismi; (a work in likelihood well suiting with the spirit of the Author) of M. Nids' neglecting to make report of it to the Archbishop; (who, it may be, would have passed the like censure upon him, that he did upon M. Broad, at the tender of his book) his own neglect of calling upon him: because 
t Ibid. p. 24, 25.  the tidings of it coming to M. Wotton's ear, struck such a damp into him, that for fear of afterclaps he silenced both himself and his Disciples. (and yet to silence a man already silenced was no such great matter) so that now all was hushed, & the fire quenched, and no man durst open his mouth to defend M. Wotton's opinions, though he ceased not in the Pulpit still to confute and condemn them. This all nothing concerns me, or any relation of mine. But howfarre forth therein he discovereth his own vanity, and his restless disposition, I leave it to the judgement and censure of others.  
As little concerns me that, that followeth, 
u Pag. 25.  concerning M. Wotton's book De Reconciliatione, written in Latin; wherein he saith, that M. Wotton hath vented so much poison, (for all is such, that M. Walker himself doth not relish) that the Professors at Leiden, would not suffer it to be there printed; (which whence he hath, or how he knows, or is able to prove, I know not) yea that at Amsterdam also it could not get out; (which few will believe, that know how free the Press there is) but was fain to be printed farther off, at the charge of some of his Disciples.  
As also what he 
x Ibid.  adds of some others, who did privately oppose M. Wotton; as M. Woodcock of Chessam, who in writing confuted him, and admonished him to forsake his errors. I am not indeed ignorant, that between M. Woodcock M. Wotton's ancient Colleague, and M. Wotton, disputes passed in writing, with Objections and Answers, Replies and Rejoinders, much whereof I have by me, in a fair friendly manner. As also the like did between D. Brooks, than reader of Divinity in Gresham College, (the place that M. Wotton also sometimes held) which I have seen sometime with a friend; and gave occasion of writing the book in Latin above mentioned: between M. Bradsh●w and M Wotton; and in part also between M. Wotton and myself. But none of these that ever I saw or heard, though dissenting from him in opinion, did in any of their writings charge him with heresy or blasphemy, or damn him to Hell; as M. Walker from M. Richardson here doth, 
y Nul'us reli●tus est ●edius locus, Nisi sit vita aeterna, extra r●gnum caelorum; qui●q●i● ad regnum Dei non pertinet, ad damnationem sine dubio pertinet. Aug. de verb. Ap. 14. Credit mihi fratres. duo sunt loca; & tertius non est ullus. Idem. de temp. 232. Tertium penitas ignoramus: nec in Scriptures Sanctis inveniemus. Idem hypognost. l. 5.  unless there be any medium between Heaven and Hel.  
Neither doth that fierce Thunderbolt, thrown out by M. Richardson, any whit scare me; wherein, as by a Pop like Anathema, o● a Rabinical Maranatha, he peremptorily pronounceth, upon his own certain knowledge, that whosoever lives and dies in the belief of M. Wotton's opinions shall never enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, for so M. Walker, as 
a Pag. 25.  from M. Barlows mouth, being M. Richardsons' messenger 
b Pag. 26.  here reports it. Tho, whether M. Richardson were in his sentence so peremptory, or no, may be doubted; the rather because M. Walker in his relations of it agrees not all out with himself. For whereas here he telleth us, that M. Richardson should in a more rigid manner affirm, that he KNEW M. Wotton's opinions to be so pestilent and dangerous, that whosoever lives and dies in the belief of them shall never enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. In his second letter to M. Wotton he relates it a remisser way, that he protested, that he THOUGHT no man living and dying in his opinion should be saved. And you know, what is wont to be said and thought of those that are taken in two tales.  
But be M. Richardsons' doom never so precise and peremptory, it nowhit affrights me: since that neither I live, as I hope, in any such opinions of his, muchless look to die in them, whatsoever else I may concurs with him in, nor do I conceive any whit the less hope of M. Wotton's being in Heaven for this his horrid and hideous doom. Only if M. Richardson did then pass such a censure, when he was now at point of death, as 
c On his deathbed, Pag. 25. a dying man. p. 26.  M. Walker saith he was, I could have wished more charity, and less presumption concerning other men's estates, in a man so near to the giving up of an account for himself. That M. Wotton lived and died in some errors I doubt not. Nor do I make account, but that I do live, and look to die, in many myself. If M. Walker deem, or hope, otherwise of himself; he presumeth of, and promiseth more to himself, than I suppose, ever befell any son of Adam, our blessed Saviour alone excepted. But that any opinion, which M. Wotton held was so pestilent and pernicious, as to cut him wholly off from Christ, and all interest in Christ, who so shall affirm, had need look to himself, lest he bring thereby a greater guilt upon his own soul, then M. Wotton contracted by any error that he held. Meanwhile, well it is, that the Keys of Heaven are not, either in M. Richardsons' hands, or at M. Walkers disposition. were they so, it might well be deemed, that many an one should have been excluded, who I doubt not but have found entrance; many should be shut out, who I hope, yet shall get in, notwithstanding M. Walkers peremptory sentence passed upon them for heretics, and that blasphemous ones too; such as have no right in Christ here, nor shall ever reign with him hereafter.  
Howbeit this fiery Thunderbolt did so inflame M. Walker, as he telleth us, that 
d Pag. 26.  it encouraged him to go on the more boldly in laying open M. Wotton's abominations, without all fear or regard of his factious and furious Disciples, persons belike of the same stamp and temper with himself; if by his writings he may be judged of.  
From this he passeth to M Godwins railing Libel; which he telleth his Reader, that 
e Ibid.  some say, M. Gataker counselled him to write against M Walker; which if M. Walker will avouch as a truth, I must tell him, that he telleth a notorious untruth; and such as he could not but know to be most untrue, unless I had wittingly in my Postscript told a loud lie; where I professed, 
f Relat. Postsc. p. 50.  that till of late I had never to my knowledge heard or seen the man; and then only but once; which was not only much later than the birth of M. Godwins work, but even after M. Walkers own book was come abroad, at what time hearing him named, whom else I had not known, I told him indeed smilingly, that if he were such an one, he was an heretic in print; alluding to M Walkers discovery, which I had not long before lighted on. But whether M. Godwins book be a railing libel, or no; for my part, I know not, having never read two lines of it, only seen the Title of it in the Stationer's shop. But let this go among the bundle of untruths, which M Walker hath sluft this his Pamphlet with; that M Gataker counselled one, whom he had never seen to his knowledge, nor changed two words with, to write a railing libel against M. Walker. whereas any reasonable man would rather imagine, that M Godwin wrote that, whatsoever it be that he wrote, provoked by M Walkers own writing against him and railing upon him; which, it seems, therein he returneth answer unto, and is printed and published by him together with it, and according to the truth, yea, or likelihood of this report, I am very well content, that credit be given to his other relations; those at least that 
g Pag 8.  he builds upon the credit of other mensreports; if not to more than a few, that must rely upon his own.  
With M. Godwins Libel he joineth 
h Pag. 24.  M. Gatakers Invective. for so he is pleased to style my relation, as 
i Pag. 9  before, so here again. which being abroad, I leave to others to judge, whether it deserve that Title, or no; or, if M. Walker so please, whether of the two, that my Relation, or this his Vindication, may lay better claim to such an Inscription.  
But there is another Invective, that he challengeth me for. and it shall not be amiss, by way of anticipation, hereto take it in, and consider of it, as being a branch of the same general indictment, that in this kind M. Walker commenceth against me. He telleth his Reader therefore in his ensuing discourse; 
k Pag. 30:  that he, the said M. Gattaker hath publicly extolled and commended for Orthodox the like Treatise (to those of M. Wottons; heretical belike and blasphemous, as his) of M. William Bradshaw: and inveighed against some, meaning me, (saith M. Walker) who had opposed some errors and contradictions, which are in that book, in his Funeral Sermon preached at M. bradshaw's burial.  
Wherein M. Walker showeth himself no changeling, but still like himself. Nor am I sorry, that M. Walker hath thus mentioned M. Bradshaw, and thereby given me occasion to speak somewhat of the man, and somewhat also of his work: that I may thereby further vindicare him a little from M. Walkers obloquys; as I have already in part, from the slanderous calumnies of an other foul mouthed railer, a leader of Separatists at Amsterdam my rejoinder to whom in defence of M. Bradshaw, and his answer to M. Fr. johnsons' reasons for separation from the Church-Assemblies in England, although it came abroad without my consent; having been advertised by some wel-wishing friends, of somethings in M. Bradshawes' discourse, that seemed to trench upon the government then established; and desiring therefore, for better security, to print mine own apart without it; which might safely have been done here without more ado: yet being by that railing and reviling Replier required to tell whether it were mine, or not; I returned him by the messenger who delivered me his Letter, this Answer, That I had sometime written a Defence of M. Bradshaw against him. which if it were published according to my copy, I would not refuse to own. And indeed published it was; but as without my privity, so exceeding corruptly, whole lines in some passages left out, and the sense in many places perverted and mar●ed; as by a large list of Errata, which I caused to be printed, and annexed to it, so soon as some copies of it came to my hand, may appear. Since which time I find the rest of that scurrilous work (for I dealt only with the last Chapter, that concerned M Bradshaw,) very solidly and learnedly refuted by one M. John Ball, a reverend and judicious Divine (who had formerly written in defence of set forms of prayer) in 
l Answer to two Treatises of M Io. Can.  a Treatise since his decease published by M. Simon Ash Lecturer here in the City.  
But to return to M. Walker, and his charge here against me. True it is that I preached at M. bradshaw's burial. The worth of the man, though not so commonly known, in regard he lived in a mean and obscure estate, through the iniquity of the times, having his chief dependence, and main means of maintenance from a private family, and being naturally not prone to put himself forth; yet highly valued by those that throughly knew him, and inwardly conversed with him; and the entire affection and straightest band of friendship, that held inviolably firm unto the very last between us; deservedly challenging for him from me, not that only, but much more than my weak ability was ever able to reach to. And I did what I then did, with as much grief and regret of heart and mind, as ever I performed any office in that kind. The loss of so worthy, and so intimate a friend, (besides the common loss of one so qualified and endowed, to God's Church) inwardly piercing with me more deeply, than everyone was aware of, or myself able easily or suddenly to shake off. But how in my Sermon then made, I inveighed against M. Walker or any other, I shall leave to the equal and indifferent consideration of others, when I shall have precisely related what then I delivered, and subjoined the occasion, whereupon I spoke it.  
In a short speech, that I had, before I entered upon my Text, concerning the occasion of mine appearance at that time in that place; and of the party deceased, to whose remains that office of Christian sepulture was then to be performed; having spoken somewhat, but very briefly, and over-scantly rather than otherwise, concerning his singular dexterity, as in resolving cases of conscience, so in clearing of controversed points in Divinity; (in either of which kinds he did so excel, that I have seldom, if ever, known his match) I added these words concerning the latter; Wherein his labours, though uncharitably taxed and traduced by some, yet have been, as myself can testify, not only reverently esteemed by divers of good note in both the Universities, professing some of them in my hearing to have profited much by them, and to have been thereby better informed in some particulars, which they conceived not so well before; but even by some strangers of eminent place and profession beyond the Seas, very highly extolled, as by some of their Letters to him is yet to be seen. And this, 〈◊〉 protest, is all that I then said; which M. Walker here, (a man it seems, of a very tender ear, though of too tart a tongue) terms inveighing against him.  
But, if it may not be over-troublesome, I shall request my Readers patience a while, to receive from me some not overlong relation, concerning the occasion of that short clause, consisting but of four words at most, that M. Walker taketh so much offence at; that he may thereby be the better enabled to judge aright whether I spoke any more, than M. Walker had given over-just occasion to speak.  
M. Bradshaw had published, a succinct indeed, but very accurate, (if sundry men of good parts may be believed) Treatise concerning the Justification of a sinner before God. In the Preface whereunto, having given intimation of some difference among our Divines in some particulars concerning this head of Divinity; Whence, saith he, many weak minds have been somewhat perplexed; and some strong ones (at least in their own conceits) exceedingly distempered, as th● there were amongst us, which overturned foundations, teaching blasphemous heresies about this matter; whereas all of us with one mouth profess this, That a sinner is justified not by any formal inherent Righteousness in himself, but only by the free and mere grace and mercy of God, through the meritorious satisfaction of our Saviour Christ, the only mediator between God and a sinner. Wherein we all give all the glory of our justification and salvation to God in Christ jesus, and therein hold the main Foundation. We differ only in certain circumstances; wherein nothing is derogated, either from the mercy of God, or merits of Christ, or arrogated to our own works.  
Now the former part of this speech M Walker taking to himself (as, though not named, yet conscious to himself of his own guilt, he well might) inveighed fiercely and furiously (after his wont guise) in a Sermon preached in Paul, Church, against the whole ●…ffirming it to be a book full of centradictions and heresies; of the same nature as he had before averred M. Wotton's writings to be, 
m Pag. 30.  to which also he here likeneth it. And withal, by a Stationer, whose shop I frequented, he sent me a challenge, that such a book be understood to be mine, (as true as that 
n Pag. 26.  I set M. Godwin on work to write a railing libel against him) though it came out in another man's name, (not unlike that of the Amsterdam railer, that 
o Io. Can of necessity of separation from non-conformists principles. p. 127. of which see Preface to Rejoinder, p. 11.  he should father another man's work written against johnson) and that, if I would undertake the defence of it, he would prove it to consist of contradictions and heresies. Unto which I returned him this answer, that M. Bradshaw was able enough to defend his own work. That, if he had aught with me, he knew where mine abode was; if I ought with him, I knew (I thought) where he dwelled, but that I had no desire to have dealings with one of that spirit, of which I perceived him to be.  
Herewith not content, he wrote a book against M. Bradshaw so vile and so virulent, that tendering it for allowance at London-house, he could not obtain passage for it to the press. Howbeit a Copy of it came to M. bradshaw's hands, who had also answered some good part of it in a modest manner; as among the remains of his imperfect writings is yet to be seen. But M. Walkers Pamphlet not coming abroad, it seems, he gave over.  
The Title of M. Walkers work was this: A Wolf in a Sheep's clothing.  
And to give you some small taste of his manner of dealing in it; (for 
p Ex pauculis guttis dignoscitur maris 〈…〉 non ebibatur. 〈◊〉. l. a. c. 34.  a few drops of Sea-water tasted, will sufficiently show, what relish the whole Ocean hath) he thus begins his onset upon the main body of the Book.  
Having before examined the Preface word by word, and discovered plainly and largely the impudent calumnies, open lies, desperate errors, and gross contradictions therein contained; I will now proceed to examine and censure the Treatise itself: wherein he showeth himself still one and the same man; to w●t, one of a factious spirit, a desperate maintainer and justifier of our new upstart Socinian Heretics, the blasphemous disciples of Servetus Socinus & Arminius, an horrible and prosane abuser of the Word of God, citing it contrary to all sense; one speaking like the old Oracles of Apollo, sometimes without any sense, sometimes so ambiguously, as that his words may bear divers & contrary senses, sometimes affirming boldly strange things, without rendering any reason; as if he were a second peremptory Pythagoras, or a new purified Pope, whose words or sayings must be received against all reason, as if they were Oracles of God; and in a word, as in the Preface, so in the Treatise, he doth by his fruits, and his proofs contrary to his pretended Titles in every Chapter, discover himself to be A Wolf in Sheep's clothing.  
And that he may end in no better manner than he began, he thus enters upon the last Chapter:  
This Chapter, though it treat only of things humane, such as we daily hear and see, and have experience of, yet it hath divers errors: As if the Author had vowed to err in all things; and to infect Heaven and Earth, and all things sacred and profane, with his Treatise.  
Now whether such a censure as this might not well bear out as much, if not much more, than I then spoke, I am well content, that any man, not wholly forestalled with extreme prejudice, be judge.  
Yea but Mr. bradshaw's Treatise, it may be, well deserved such a censure.  
I will not, for satisfaction herein, send you (though I well might) to the work itself. It may not be at hand; or you may suspect, if you have it, and shall be pleased to peruse it, that some rank poison lieth so closely couched in it, that an ordinary sight is not able easily to descry it. And yet, as M. Bradshaw well answereth him concerning the Preface; If the calumnies be impudent, the l●es open, the errors desperate, the contradictions gross, they are such as sufficiently discover themselves; and M. Walkers discovery is therefore in vain, being as though he should say, he hath discovered the Sun, when it shines out in his brightness in every man's face: so that either M. Walker hath discovered no calumnies, lies, errors and contradictions at all; or they are not open, grass, desperate and impudent. In like manner may I say of the Treatise itself; if the errors in it be so 
p Chap. 2. & Chap. 9  gross, palpable, abominable, and contrary to all sense, that they do not only discover, but even judge and condemn themselves, as M. Walker affirmeth of them; surely any dim sight will suffi●● to discern what the work is. Nor will I offer to obtrude upon you mine own conceit of it. I might peradventure be deemed partial, both in regard of mine own opinion; albeit I concur not in all things with him; and in regard of mine entire affection to my friend; 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Psal. ●●irac. c●●ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Naz. ep. 13 & 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ide●. apolog. Fallit enim affectus. Pli●…. l. 4. ep. 44. & amantium caeca sunt judicia. Hieron. ad joan. Hierosol.  which I grant may sometime also somewhat oversway. But I shall inform you, as before I intimated, how it hath been censured by others, men no way engaged; and that, far otherwise then M. Walker hath been pleased to pronounce of it.  
And here I might entertain you, with the judgement of 
r Sir Edward Cook then Lord chief Justice.  a great Lawyer and Councillor of State, one in his time reputed a man of some judgement: who in regard of some near affinity visiting the Gentlewoman, whom M Bradshaw made abode with, in the time of his sickness, and lighting accidentally upon this short Treatise, after he had runover some good part of it was very much taken with it; and demanding who was the author of it, professed, that he had seldom read a thing more pithily and pregnantly written.  
But because it may be objected, that this was out of his element; and yet let me tell you, that some 
s See M. Prinnes preface to his Treatise of the perpetuity of Faith.  Lawyers have in Divinity dealt to good purpose; and that the term of justification being 
t ●orense vocabulum. Calviu. iustitut. l. 3. c. 11. § 3. Chemnit. exam. Conc. Trid. part. 1. de vocab. justif. Pet. Mart. in Rom. 8. 33. Bucer. praefat. in Epist. Paul. c. 8. Par. in Rom. 3. 28. & resp. ad dub. 7. Chamier. Pa●strat. tom. 3. l. 21. c 14. § 10. Bellarm. de justif. l. 2. c. 3. except. 1. & 2.  a Law term, (as our Divines, with good warrant from 
u Deut. 25. 1. Psal. 82. 3. Prov. 17. 15. Esay 5 23. & 43. 26.  God's Word, constantly maintain) a discourse of that subject is to that profession no stranger. I shall leave him, and in room of him present you with the judgement of a Divine of special note M. Lodowik, or Lewis, Cappel, one of the Professors of Divinity in the University of Salmure in France; a man among the learned well known by his works. This M. Cappel, having received this Treatise of M. bradshaw's, from M. Aaron Cappel his kinsman, one of the Ministers of the French Church here in London, returned back to him many thanks for it; requesting him withal to inquire after the Author, and either to deliver, or convey to him his Letters enclosed: the superscription whereof was this; 
Doctissimo atque ornatissimo clarissimoque viro,  
Domino Guilielmo Bradshaw.  The Subscription: 
Tui, non studiosus modo sed cultor & admirator,  
Ludovicus Cappellus.   
I translate them not, because the English phrase in such forms, will not so well fit them.  
The contents are word for word in part thus:  
Missus est ad me Londino à D. Capello, Ecclesiae Gallicanae quae Londini est Pastore, mole quidem exiguus, sed doctrinâ atque ingenio & acumine grandis, de justificatione libellus, Anglicè conscriptus, autore G. Bradshaw. Is quia perplacebat, & mihi cum D. Gomaro exemplar illud erat common, statim à me in privatum usum Gall●cè est redditus. Anglicanum exemplar D. Gomaro reliqi. Dicam ingenuè. Nihil in humanis scr●ptis dogmati●is hactenus â me lectum est, quod tam vebementer mihi placuerit Ita doctè, acutè, pressè, solidè, nervose, apertè s●…l & mirâ brevitate totum hoc argumentum plenissimè à te est comprehensum atque pertractatum. Verba attem quibus illud dignè pro merito suo collaudem atque extollam, mihi non suppe●unt. Saepius ille mihi lectus est; nec unqam ejus satias me cepit. quin eo vehementius sui in me excitavit desiderium quo frequentius repetitus atque relectus: tantus in eo doctrinae, artis atque ingenii splendour & lumen refulget. 

That is in English.  
There hath been sent me from London by M. Cappel Pastor of the French Church there, a little book of justification, small in bulk, but in learning, wit and acuteness very great, written in English by William Bradshaw. This because it much pleased me, and Gomarus and I had but one copy between us; I translated out of hand for mine own use into French, and left the English copy to Gomarus. I will speak ingenuously. I never hitherto read aught in any humane writing of dogmatic Divinity, that so exceedingly liked me. So learnedly, acutely, closely, solidly, pithily, both plainly, and yet with admirable brevity, is this whole Argument most fully comprased, and thoroughly handled by you. I want words, wherewith to commend and extol it according to its desert. I have oft read it over; and yet never had enough of it, but the oftener I repeat it and read it over again, the more eagerly is mine appetite stirred up unto it so great splendour and light of learning, of Art and wit shineth forth in it. And so forth. For the rest is a discourse concerning some particulars, wherein he desired further satisfaction, treading wholly then in Piscator's steps.    
But thus he, a mere stranger, to a man, whom he had never seen or heard of before; judging of him only by that vile, abominable, absurd, senseless book, that M. Walker (I hope I may now be somewhat the bolder to speak it) doth so uncharitably tax and traduce.  
Give me leave a little further to trespass upon thy patience, good Reader. To give M. Cappel further satisfaction, and to save much writing at large to and fro; M. Bradshaw resolved to review the work, and having a little better cleared some things, to translate it into Latin. That which also he did, and sent a copy of it to M. Cappel. who in a second Letter after the receipt of it, wrote back to him in these words:  
Scripsi jam antehaec, vir clarissime, me accepisse libellum tuum de justificatione verè aureum, à te auctum Latinumque factum, eumque à me extemplò, sed raptim, perlectum esse: ita vehemens me ejus ceperat desiderium, ex prius lectâ Anglicanâ ejus editione. Ind à me non semel, sed saepius, & cum otio, perlectus est. quem quo saepiùs relego, eo magis mihi arridet probaturque. ita ad unguem à te exactus est. Pacatis & moderatis ingeniis, ab utralibet sint parte, quique non nimio partium studio aguntur, spero probatum iri istum tui ingenii partum atque faetum: licet non omnia utrisque concedas, quae ipsi vellent. Ita medius inter utramque incedis sententiam, ut neutris displicere debeas, si verè sint pacis & concordiae amantes. 

That is in English:  
Right worthy sir, I wrote before to you, that I had received your truly golden little book of justification, enlarged by you, and turned into Latin; and that presently, but hostily, I read it over, so eager an appetite had I to it, by reading the other Edition of it in English before. Since that I have read it over again, not once but often, and taking leisure thereunto. Which the oftener I read over again, the more it pleaseth me, and is approved of by me: so accurately and exactly is it composed by you. I hope this birth and issue of your mind will find approbation with peaceable and moderate dispositions, on whether side so ever they are; albeit you condescend not to them in all things that they require. You place so in the midst between either opinion, that you ought not to displease either of them, if they truly love peace and concord.    
Now how this agreeth with M. Walkers censure of M. bradshaw's book, that thereby he hath showed himself to be one of a factious spirit, and a desperate maintainer and justifier of blasphemous heretics, he may easily soon see, that either is not blind, or doth not wilfully wink.  
I might add, that if M. Walkers censure of M bradshaw's book be admitted, the like must be passed upon the writings of some others, publicly allowed, and generally well esteemed of among us; and by name on M Pembles large Treatise of justification beforementioned, and M. Torsels briefer discourse of the same subject: both which build mainly on Brad●…●…ounds ●…ounds, the latter precisely treadeth in his  
Thus much concerning my deservedly dear friend, who neither living, nor deceased, could scape the scourge of M. Walkers tongue; which 
a Pag. 26.  without fear or regard (to use his own words of himself) he lets fly both at living, and at dead; and concerning that work of his, by other pious, learned and judicious so praised and apprised; which shall (I doubt not) survive with its due and deserved approbation from such; when M. Walkers railing Pamphlet, wherein he so traduceth it, shall either lie buried in perpetual oblivion; or, if ever it come to see open light, shall stink in the nostrils both of God and good men.  
But M. Walker hath not so done with M. Gataker. For, If it were not vain expense of precious time, 
b Pag. 26, 27.  he could first of all produce Socinianism out of his works; and so make him a party. And so I presume he could also out of Bucer, Pareus, Pemble, Piseator, and I know not how many more, as well as out of M. Gataker, if he would set himself to it. For M. Walker hath a very singular dexterity herein; as in part hath already been showed. But I answer him briefly. That 
c Dolosus vers●tur in universalibus. Reg. jur.  general charges are generally deemed deceitful; and will not hold either in Law or in conscience. And again, that 
d Ecquis innocens esse pote●j●● si acousasse sufficiet? julian. apud Ammian. l. 18.  if to accuse be sufficient, no man is sure to go guiltless, be his cause never so good. And yet, what were this, could he prove it by M Gataker, to Dr. Gouges and M. downham's Attestation, which directly avoweth, that M. Walker could not prove it by M. Wotton, when time was, and he had undertaken so to do? unless this be a good argument; Socinianism may be produced now out of M. Gatakers works: and therefore Dr. Gouge and M. Downham with the rest did not so determine, as that they did, under their own hands they do witness.  
Besides, 
e Pag. 26.  he could prove M Gataker to be Thomas of all sides Sometimes holding that the elect and faithful are clothed with the garment of Christ's righteousness; and again disputing against their communion and imputation of Christ's righteousness.  
Whereunto I answer. 1. For that scurrilous term better beseeming some scoffing jester, than a grave and sage Minister of Christ. It thal never trouble me by M. Walker so to by styled; nor by any other either so to be esteemed, if thereby be intimated, that I am such an one, as refuse not to embrace all truth that I meet with on any side, be the side what it will: no more than I would forbear, to take up a Pearl, wheresoever I should find it, whether in the mother of Pearls shell, or with Esop's cock, either 
f Sicnt ex Ennii stercore aurum V●rgilius.  on the dunghill, or in the dirt. Or if he intent thereby to note me for such a one, as have in some particulars altered my judgement from what sometime formerly I held; nor do I refuse in many things so to be deemed. I suppose, that holds not in me alone, but in many others, which 
g Math. M●…inius.  a Divine, as well of good, as of great, note, is reported to have said in the Council of Dort, when it was objected unto him, that something spoken by him differed from some clause in the Catechism; 
h Multa discimus p●eri, de quibus dubitamus senes.  We are taught many things when we are young, that we make doubt of, when we are old. Who is he, that is careful to make diligent enquiry into the truth of things, who doth not oft alter his former opinion? For my part, I freely profess, with that worthy ancient, that 
i Fat●or me ex corum rum●ro esse co●ari. qui s●ribendo pr●fi eiunt & pro●fiendo scr●…t. Aug ●p. 7.  my desire and endeavonr is to be one of those, who write as they profit, and profit as they write. And I may peradventure, following 
* Opuscula me● retractanda suscepi, ut nee meipsum in o●…ibus me secutum demonstrem. Aug. de persever. c. 21.  that pious pattern, if God please to grant me longer life, with strength and leisure, take some time and pains to review those weak works, that I have sormerly sent abroad, to satisfy other men more than myself; and to amend what therein I deem myself to have been mistaken in; to explain what I doubt may be mistaken by others. Nor do I account it any 
k Nullus mihi pudor est, ad meliora transire. Ambr. Ep. 31. Turpe est n●…tare are sententiam; sed veram & rectan. nam stultam noxia●ve & laudabile & salubre est. Aug. ep. 210. Optimi enim est propositi, laudandique consilii, facilè ad veriora traduci. Victor apud Aug. de orig. anim. l. 2. c. 16.  shame or stain to me, to alter in aught for the better. I hold it a point rather of 
l Non est levita● ab errore jam cognitodiscedere. h●ec verò superbae stultitiae persevera●tia est, Quod semel dixi, fixumratum sit. semel placita semper maneant, nec ulla in libris meis litura fit. Sen. de benef. l. 4. c. 38. & de beat. c. 8.  pride and folly (shameful enough either of them; both together much more) for any man, to think his works blemished, by dashing out of aught in them, that he finds he was deceived in; when as the standing of it still there is rather a blemish to his books. I am, and shall ever be, of that famous, though Heathen, Emperor's mind: 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. M. Anton. l. 6.  If any man, saith he, can in aught better inform me, and discover to me mine error, I shall readily yield to him. For I seek nothing but the truth, which never wrongs him that finds it. True it is, that in this point of Justification, I went sometime another way then now I do; the same that Gomarus and some other still do, and before me did; until upon occasion of some Lectures of Dr. Grey, who succeeded M. Wotton at Gresham-Colledge, I fell into conference and disceptation with M. Bradshaw about it; and after many disputes, that passed to and fro in writing between us, wherein I strove stiffly to maintain what then I held; being at length by force of Argument beaten from my hold, I yielded not so much to my friend, as to the truth; (as I was then, and am still, certainly 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epictet. Stob. c. 5. n Est virtus summa veritati cedere.  persuaded) which to be overborne by, I shall ever account the best valour, 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Phi●onid. A jure vinci praecluis victoria est. Grot. A veritate vinoi res pulcherrima. A veritate ●in. ●i, lau● est, bawd probrum.  to be overcome by the fairest victory.  
And yet that phrase of being clothed with the robe of Christ's righteousness, whether I used it before or since, is not material. For neither do I now reject it, nor doth it cross aught, that either I or they, with whom I now concur, hold; being found frequently in their writings, and 
p See Pareus de Ast. & Pass. Chr. Ohed. Pofit. 1. p. 180.  acknowledged by them: since that I maintain still with them, as always I did, 
q See before M. bradshaw's Prefac.  no other righteousness, whereby we are justified, that is, discharged of the guilt of our sins in God's sight, but what accrueth unto us from Christ, and the satisfaction made by him unto God's justice for them: according to that of the Apostle, 
r 2 Cor. 5. 21.  Him that knew no sin, did God make sin for us; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.  
As for communion and imputation of Christ's righteousness, how far forth I either maintain or deny either; (for M. Walker runs on still in generalities, and after his blundering manner jumbles things together, as if communion and imputation were either the same, or of equal extent, and the not acknowledgement of the one therefore a denial of the other) my 
s Elenchus Disput. Fr. Gomari: & Disceptatio cum Lud. Lucio.  works show, that are extant: wherein if either M. Walker, or any other, shall in friendly manner convince me of any mistake, 
t Debere me multum profitebor, amicè decteque potior a suggerenti. Lud. Vr●es praefat. in Aug. de Civ. Dei. In aere me ejus futurum profiteor, qui candidè caftigarit. Zinzerlin. promise. erit.  he shall do me no small pleasure; as conceiving it 
u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De●…crit. & Isocrat. Stob. c. 13. & Anton. 〈◊〉. l. 1. ●78.  a greater benefit to myself, to have mine own errors by others discovered to me, then to be an instrument of discovering other men's ●rrots to them; since that, (as he said sometime of things amiss 
x Vitium ●xoris aut tollendum, aut f●rendum est. qni tollit vitium, uxorem commodioreet praestat. qui fert, sese meliorem facit. Varro. Gel. l. n. c. 17.  between man and wise) 
y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plato Gorg. Method. apud Epithan. haeres. 84. § 43. Gregor. Naz. apud Max. c. 31.  by the one I may help to amend my brethren, but by the other I may be amended myself.  
Mean while, so far am I from being Thomas of all sides in some sense, that I profess and shall desire rather in some kind, to be Thowas of no side. For I love not siding in God's Church; among Christ's Ministers especially. I love not, I am for this man; and I am for that man: I am for this side, and I am for that side. 
a 1 Cor. 1. 12. Rom. 16. 18.  The Apostle himself liked it not. I love not holding the faith of Christ with respect of persons. 
b Jam. 2. 1.  an other Apostle forbids it. I love not, that any be tied to follow any one man, or any number of men whatsoever, in all things. 
c 1 Cor. 11. 1.  The Apostles themselves required it not, in matter of fact; nor may any now living in matter of faith. Hence proceed 
d 1 Cor. 3. 3. & 11. 18, 19  schisms and factions, and uncharitable censures, many times of those as unsound, that are, it may be, more sincere, have at least as good a share in Christ, as those that so censure them. And surely, if the words heresy and heretic were rightly understood, or if they be so taken (as I suppose them to be constantly used in Scripture; nor do I think that the contrary can be easily evinced) the one for 
e Act. 5. 17. & 15. 5. & 24. 5, 14. & 26. 5. & 28, 22. 1 Cor. 11. 18; 19 Gal. 5. 20.  faction, the other for 
f Tit. 3. 10.  a factious person; none, I fear, will be found more truly guilty of heresy, or better to deserve the title of heretic, than those, who (therein concurring with the Papists, whom yet they profess most to abhor) are so prone to condemn all as heretics and tainted with heresy in their sense, that is, as men cut off from Christ, and having no interest in him, who do not in all matters of practice comply, or in all points of doctrine concur with themselves. Of their side, Lord, let me never be: 
g Gen. 49. 6.  let my soul never enter into their secret. Neither is it, nor shall ever be my desire, either so to pin my faith upon the sleeve of any part or party, or to engage my judgement to any mere man's or men's opinion, (the Pen men of holy writ only excepted) as 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plato Gorg. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magist●i. Flac. epist. 1.  to admit hand over head whatsoever he or they shall hold and maintain: nor yet again ro refuse or reject any truth, which by the light that God shall be pleased to lend me, I shall be able to descry in the writings of any, though otherwise never so erroneous or unsound.  
In the next passage yet M. Walker is somewhat more charitable. For though he hold me an heretic, yet he will pray for me. He prayeth, that 
i Pag. 27:  God will give me a more settled judgement in the truth; and a more charitable heart to my laborious neighbours. And I willingly put mine Amen to his prayer. for m●ne hearty desire and daily prayer to God is, to have mine heart daily more and more 
k 2 Pet. 1. 12.  established in the truth. Nor do I less desire, to carry a charitable affection towards my Christian brethren, either laborious, or other; though more especially towards those, whom 
l 1 Thes. 5. 13.  for their labours sake, I do deservedly the more love. Wherein yet, as in other graces and offices, I doubt not but that I may many ways 
m Charitas, quandiu hîc vivitur, augeri p●test. quamdiu autem augeri potest, profectò iilud quod minus est quam d●bet, ex vitio est. ex quo vitio non est, qui non p●●cet. Aug de perfect. just. c 15.  fail and fall short, during this state of imperfection and humane frailty: and wherein had not M. Walker much failed toward a brother very laborious, while he had liberty to labour in public; and no loiterer then, as by 
n See a list of them Relat. Posts●. p. 61.  his writings appears, when he was restrained from his ministerial employments; but then also labouring, though not in public, which was not permitted him, yet for the public, what he might; this expense of precious time, (which 
u Pag. 26.  he would elsewhere seem so dainty of) of necessity now wasted in debating these matters, might very well have been sp●red, and much more profitably been spent otherwise.  
Howbeit M. Walkers charity even in his prayer eould not keep itself from discovery of some inward rancour mixed with a little tang at least of vainglory. For 
p Pag. 27.  his laborious neighbours, (saith he, meaning himself; for I know no other that complain of any defect or default in me in this kind towards them) who spend their time in better studies, then writing of Treatises for unlawful gaming and carding, and bedaubing margins with many quotations to small purpose, but only for ostentation of much reading.  
To either of which imputations, I shall severally and respectively return some short answer.  
For the former, 1. I doubt much, whether M. Walker spent his time b●…ter in this and the like railing and reviling Invectives against his laborious brethren, than I did mine in writing of that Treatise 
q See the Preface prefixed to the Reader.  which yet had I not published, had not the iniquity of some, therein not wholly unlike M. Walker, enforced me thereunto.  
2. The Treatise is of the nature and use of lots in general: and the scope of it, to remove, as well the superstitious practice of them in one kind, as the superstitious conceit of them in another.  
3. If any game therein defended, as not simply evil in regard of a Lot in it, yea or otherwise, be by M. Walker deemed utterly unlawful, let him by evidence of argument evince the same so to be; and he shall therein 
r Legatur Antidiatribe Ame●●o Voeti●que r●po●●ta: & Responsio Balmfordo redditt.  do more than by any other, that I know, hitherto hath been done. Mean while, let M. Walker give me leave to tell him, that I do not believe him, nor believe that he is able to make his word good. though I am not ignorant, what he hath bragged of his abilities so to do.  
For the latter, to wit, my course of quotation: 1. I may well, I presume, defend myself, by the examples of many, of much more worth and esteem, as well for godliness as for judgement, then either myself, or M. Walker; that 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. âe Dionys. Longino Ennap. in P●rphyr. ovi & in AEdes. Socrates. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  living Library of all good literature, Dr. Raynolds, among the rest: unless M. Walker be able to prove the practice unlawful.  
But 2. I say only, that howsoever for the use and end of it; he be pleased to censure it; I hope, there will not want others, whose judgements may well weigh a little more at least with me, that will approve of it as useful; and make a better and more charitable construction of it, (if not thank me for it) than he doth. And 3. it may be, if some quoted the Authors they allege, and pointed to the places they relate to in them, their evil usage of those they deal with, would the more easily be discovered. Howsoever, I shall choose rather to have my Margin so bedaubed, than my Text so stuffed as M. Walkers is, as well in this as in some other his writings.  
Lastly, I demand, what either this or the former is to the matter in hand, or the carriage of the business between M. Walker and M. Wotton: or what occasion M. Walker had to be girding here at either; unless it be that his finger's itch to be picking of new quarrels, though they nothing concern him or the present occasion. Or that 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arifla. thet. l. 3. c. 14.  being conscious to himself of the badness of the cause he here deals in, he is loath to keep close to it, and willing rather to run out into any other thing, though it have no relation at all thereunto.  
Howbeit, notwithstanding M. Walkers laborious employments, he will yet, it seems, filch a little time from them, to examine M. Gataker upon a few interrogatories; 
a Pag. 27.  which unless he can answer with credit, he must of necessity for ever hereafter hold his peace, and blush as of● as he thinks, how by his defence of M. Wotton, he hath accused and defamed himself.  
But here M. Walker much mistakes his mark, and shoots at random. For my Relation, which he pretends to refute, is not M. Gatakers Defence of M. Wotton, but M. Wotton's Defence of himself: nor did either I, or any of those that were joined with me in the meeting related, undertake to defend M. Wotton as one free from all error, but delivered only, what we thought of M. Wotton's own Defence of himself in regard of aught that M. Walker had laid to his charge. Nor do I therefore conceive, either that I stand upon me credit engaged to answer to all M: Walkers Interrogatories; or that M. Walker hath any du power thus to bind me over to silence and shame, upon my refusal so to do.  
Yet let us see what they are.  
The first is, 
b Pag. 27.  Whether it be truth and honesty to say, that 
c Relat. p. 36.  all the eight Ministers with unanimous consent generally resolved and pronounced, that there appeared not to them either heresy or blasphemy in aught that M. Wotton was by M. Walker convinced to have delivered or maintained: when their subscription shows that they meddled only with his Expositions, and not with his heretical and blasphomous speeches, in which he paralleled him with Socinus the heretic,  
To all which I shall easily answer in a word, that if that which he here relateth as mine, be the same in effect with what is 
d Relat. p. 38.  testified under the hands of D. Gouge and M. Downham (as it is evident that it is) the untruth and dishonesty must be charged upon them: who, I hope, will be better able to acquit themselves in this business of either; then he that so shamelessly chargeth them therewith.  
As for that, which he addeth, to disprove it, of Expositions; (which word how it came into the subscription, I suppose, no man surviving, unless himself, now knows;) and of speeches heretical and blasphemous, (words of course with M. Walker) wherein he paralleled M. Wotton and Socinus; enough before hath been spoken to satisfy any reasonable Reader; though not, it may be, M. Walker.  
The second question is, 
d Pag. 27.  Whether I think, that M. Wotton renouncing the Law of God and the righteousness thereof performed by Christ in our steed for our justification; doth not in so doing deny Christ's ransom paid, and satisfaction made to God's just law, for our redemption and for remission of our sins.  
To which I answer as briefly, as to the former; that it appeared not to the eight Ministers by aught M. Walker produced, that M. Wotton held aught in this particular, that did necessarily infer, what M. Walker thence concludeth.  
And let M. Walker give me leave here, if I may be so bold to minister a cross interrogatory to him; to wit, whether Pareus, Piscator, Ursine, Olevian, and the rest of them, who deny Christ's righteousness in fulfilling the Law moral to have been performed by him in our steed, for our justification, do therefore deny all ransom paid and satisfaction made to God's just Law for our redemption and the ●emission of our sins, or no. and whether they be therefore all of them blasphemous heretics. But more especially, what he thinks of that speech of Pareus above mentioned, that 
e De Act. & Pasio. Chr. Obed. possit. 5. p. 181.  those that ascribe the merit of our righteousness thereunto, (that which directly crosseth what M. Walker here avoweth) do doubtlessly make Christ's sufferings of no use or effect. Surely, if M. Wotton speak no more than Pareus, (and he hardly speaks so much) Pareus must as well, if not much rather then M. Wotton, pass with M. Walker for an heretic. And if those that hold as M. Walker doth, make Christ's sufferings of no use or effect, they, one would think, should rather go for heretics, than M. Wotton, who, it seems, is of an other mind.  
The third question is, 
f Pag. 27, 2●  Whether man's perfect fulfilling of the Law in his own person, under the covenant of works, was not formal inherent righteousness; and would have made man worthy of life. And if so, how he can excuse M. Wotton for making faith the formal inherent righteousness of believers, in the covenant of grace, by which they are worthy of justification and eternal life. Seeing he saith, that faith under the Gospel serves to all purposes for obtaining eternal life, as man's perfect fulfilling of the Law did in the covenant of works.  
Let me give you but M. Wotton's own words, out of M. Walkers own Parallel; and there shall need to this no further answer. 
g Error. 4● Relat. p. 15.  He that believeth, (saith M. Wotton) is accounted by God to all purposes concerning eternal life, to have done according to the covenant of the Gospel, as he should have been accounted to have done according to the covenant of the Law, if he had perfectly fulfilled it. For not to stand upon strict terms concerning the word Worthy: what doth M. Wotton say more here, then that which he saith elsewhere? objected also to him by M. Walker, as an heretical and blasphemous speech; 
h Error. 2. Relat. p. 13.  The act of Faith, or believing brings justification and adoption, (which what is it other then what the Apostle saith, Rom. 3. 28. & Gal. 3. 26.) Only and merely by the place and office, which the Lord of his mercy hath assigned it, to be the condition required on our parts for the achieving of these favours and honours. thereby excluding all matter of worth in Faith. which yet, whosoever is possessed of, believing in Christ, that is relying upon him for justifycation and life eternal, may well be said to be accounted by God to all purposes (to wit on our parts required, and therefore to be necessarily by us performed) to have done as much according to the covenant of the Gospel, as he should have been accounted to have done according to the covenant of the Law, had he perfectly fulfilled it. But of this also enough before out of our own Writers; and by name out of M. Pemble; whom M. Walker having so highly commended, as one 
i Epist. prefixed to M. Pembles Plea for grace.  by his writings most useful and powerful to confirm men's minds against the Wolves of this age, the Disciples of blasphemous Servetus and Socinus; will not now, I hope, condemn him for a Socinian and blasphemous heretic; and having 
k Ibid.  formerly made no doubt, but that he is ascended up into heaven, will not (I presume) for M. Wotton's sake now damn him, and throw him down, to send him packing for company with M. Wetton, to hell.  
The fourth question is in effect the same with the two next before going; only, to make some show of variety, usherd in with a list of 
l Pag. 28.  true and orthodox te●ets, wherein he saith M. Wotton professeth his dissent from Socinus; and wherein indeed M. Walker manifesteth his extreme partiality, and malignant disposition against M. Wotton; thereby showing too apparently, that his pretended zeal is not so much against Socinus and Socinianism itself, as against M. Wotton, and against the things taught by him, as coming from him. This he hath too too manifestly discovered in this interrogatory; spite and malice so blinding him, that 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Democrit. Sto●. c: 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Cyro Xenoph. instit. l. 1. Quâ noceat, ira videt; quâ caveat, non videt. Sen. de irâ. l. 2. c. 12.  he minded not what he did. For those tenets of Socinus, though unsound and containing in them rank venom, as he meaneth them, and manifesteth himself so to do, wherein M. Wotton professeth to descent from him; these M. Walker, setting a fair gloss on them, contrary to Socinus his own intendment in them, alloweth and avoweth them for orthodox and true.  
For example, the first of them is, 
n Pag. 28.  that Faith is obedience to Christ's commandments; who commandeth us to believe and repent. And it is true, that Socinus, as 
o Relat. Poscr. p. 48.  elsewhere I cite him, 
p De Christ. Servat l. 4. c. 11.  maintains as M. Walker here saith that he doth. But what saith Lubbertus to him for it? a man whom M. Walker would seem much to admire, and told us at our meeting, that he was by I know not whom styled Orthodoxorum ocellus. 
q Quod dicit, Fidem esse ea sacere, quae Christus praecepit, falsum est. Lubb. ad l. 4. c. 11 p. 561. col. 2.  Whereas he (to wit Socinus) saith (saith Lubbertus) that Faith is to do those things that Christ hath enjoined, it is false: 
r Dicere, fidem esse ea facere, quae Christus praecepit, est idem quod, iasanire. Ibid.  to affirm it to be so, is to be stark mad. So by Lubbertus his censure, not Socinus only, but M. Walker also should be no better. Again, 
s Docet, Christo ejusque verbis credere idem esse quod Christo obedire: negamus. Obedientia enim est effectum sidei. errat igitur, qui contendit fidem & obedientiam idem esse. Ibid. p. 582. col. 2.  He teacheth, that to believe Christ and his words, is to obey him. We deny it. For obedience is an effect of faith. he erreth therefore, that holds Faith and Obedience to be all one. And yet again, 
t Firmum est, quod Beza soribit, Fidem non posse mandatorum obedientiam significare. Ib. p. 574. col. 2.  Firm stands that, which Beza writes, that Faith cannot signify Obedience to the Commandments. Thus Lubbertus, one of M Walkers own Oracles. And indeed what did Socinus hereby intend, but to cut off all relying by Faith on Christ, as having paid a price to God for our sins, or satisfied for them by his death? yet this is M. Walker pleased to blanche over; as if he conceived his meaning to be nothing else, but that in believing and repenting, we obey Christ's commandment, who 
u Mark. 1. 15.  commandeth us to repent and believe. And so is content to let it pass for currant, as a true and orthodox tenet in Socinus, because M. Wotton dissented therein from Socinus; though condemned by Lubbertus (yea by whom not?) for a gross error, and in his intendment very dangerous.  
The second point, wherein M. Walker affirms M. Wotton to depart from Socinus, and which he affirms to be true and orthodox, is 
q Pag. 28.  that Repentance, which comes not but by Faith, is the means to obtain forgiveness of sins, which Christ hath brought. But he deals here with Socinus, to help him out, as he is wont to do with M. Wotton, to procure prejudice to him. For he takes part out of one passage, and part out of an other, (as M. Wotton hath 
b Answer to Error. 2. § 4. Relat. p 34. & to Error 4 p. 28.  cited him, not expressing how far forth in every particular he concurs with him, or dissents from him; but only showing, how in general he speaks not that, that himself doth) and so pieces up a proposition, which he would have deemed sound; withal paring of, what might serve to discover Socinus his gross error, wherein M. Wotton intended to imply his departure from him. For, 
c Manifestum est, in salute per Christum partâ, Deum nihil aliud à nobis requisivisse quam paenitentiam & vitae correctionem.  It is manifest, saith he, that God requireth nothing of us in the obtaining of salvation procured by Christ, but repentance and amendment of life. And, 
d Poenitentiae addita alicubi est fides, non quia praeter ipsam poenitentiam fides in Christum, tanquam aliquid amplius, quod huc pertineat in nobis efficiens, ad peccatorum remissionem consequendam requiratur, sed quia non nisi per fidem in Christum ista poenitentia contingit. Socin. l. 3. c. 2. p. 321. col. 1.  Whereas Faith is sometime added to repentance; it is not because Faith in Christ is required to the obtaining of remission of sins, (directly contrary to what the Apostle 
e Rom. 3. 25.  professeth) as working somewhat more in us besides Repentance itself, that doth hereunto appertain; but because Repentance comes not but by Faith in Christ. Thus he eclipse Socinus in favour to him; as he doth M. Wotton elsewhere to a contrary end. And yet further, because Lubbertus, Socinus his Antagonist, in refuting him, beats every where upon this, that 
f Peccatorum veniam conversio naturae ordine sequitur, non praecedit. Lubb. ad l. 1. c. 5. p. 156. c. 2. Naturae ordine justificatio est prior. Ib p. 157. c. 1.  Conversion & Repentance do not in order of nature go before, but follow remission of sin, and justification; and 
g Resipiscentia justificationis effectum est. Ib. p. 58. c. 2.  are not causes, but effects of either; nor the cause of expiation, but a consequent of it: and supposing Socinus his meaning to be, 
h Paenitentia non est causa expiationis, sed ejus consequens. Ib. ad l. 2. c. 12. p. 213. c. 2.  that our Repentance is the cause of the remission of our sins; 
i Reprobamus hanc sententiam, nam, ut jam millies osten sum est, remissio p●ccatorum, hoc est justificatio nostri, est naturâ prior poenitentiâ. quam obrem hanc ejus causam esse est simpliciter impossibile. Ib. p. 216. c. 1. & l. 3. c. 2. p. 348. c. 2. & p. 349. c. 1, 2.  This, saith he, we disallow, for, as hath a thousand times been showed, Remission of sins, that is justification, is in nature before repentance: and it is impossible therefore to be the cause of it. 
k Non nostra resipiscentia, sed ipsius sacrificium est vera causa remissionis pee●aterum. Ib. l. 2. c. 1. p. 274. c. 2.  For it is not Repentance, but Christ's sacrifice, that is the true cause of the remission of our sins: 
l Deum promittere veniam resespiscenti non negamus: tantum negamus resipiscentiam nostram esse causam, quare Deus nobis peccatorum veniam largiatur. Ib. l. 3. c. 2. p. 338. c. 2.  God indeed promiseth pardon to the repentant; but we deny repentance to be the cause for which God doth pardon. Here M. Walker strikes in to help Socinus at a dead lift, and telleth us, contrary to his Text, sure without any warrant at all from it, 
m Pag. 28.  that by obtaining forgiveness of sins, Socinus means getting the sense and assurance of forgiveness. a gloss wel-beseeming him, that professeth such a detestation of the very lest sent or shadow of Socinianism in others.  
The third point is, 
n Ibid.  that faith is a believing of that which Christ taught, and an assurance of obtaining that he promised upon our repentance and obedience. Which whether it be a just definition of justifying Faith; (for of that here the question is) or do fitly express the office of it in the work of justification, I leave to be discussed by others. M. Wotton relateth it, 
o Answer to Error. 2. § 5. Relat. p. 252, 6.  to show how that in laying down the nature and office of justifying faith, he goes an other way than Socinus doth; and further than Socinus either doth, or can, holding his own grounds, follow him. who indeed thus defines Faith, to bring all home to Repentance and obed●enee, as in the former point; and to exclude Christ's merit, and aught done or endured by him, as satisfactory for man's sin: as appears plainly by the whole context of his discourse in that Chapter, out of which these words are alleged. And I would demand of M. Walker, how he can free himself from Socinianism, when he maintains such points as these for sound and orthodox in Socinus: and what censure himself would hap passed upon an other, that should have thus blanched and varnished over such Assertions of Socinus. As also I would know of him, with what face he, that condemns in M. Wotton as heretical and blasphemous positions, these propositions, 
p Parall. Errors 5. Relat. p. 17.  To believe in Christ, is to trust in Christ, and to rest on him; to have his heart settled, and to rely wholly and only on him; and, This trust is such a faith as makes us rest upon God for the performance of his promise; doth now pronounce Socinus his definition of faith, such as you have heard, to be true, Orthodox and sound. But hereby any party, not extremely partial, may easily judge what spirit this man is carried with throughout this whole business.  
For as for his twenty times sodden Coleworts, so oft served in, of 
q Pag. 28.  M. Wotton's taking the word Faith in the Apostles words in a proper sense; Christ's fulfilling the Law for us in our steed; Faith being the condition of the Gospel, etc. taking out M. Walkers fillings and glosses set upon them, which concern M. Wotton no more than himself; enough before hath been said. and, if M. Walker can prove them to be heretical opinions, many illustrious stars, besides M. Wotton, will by a blast of M. Walkers breath, as by 
r Apoc. 12. 4.  the Dragon's tail in the vision, be thrown out of Heaven, and not struck down to the ground only, but even hurled into Hel.  
His first question is, 
s Pag. 2●.  Whether M. Wotton deny not the free covenant of Grace, when he holds, that God covenants not to justify and give life, but upon a condition performed on our part, equivalent for all purposes to man's fulfilling of the Law in his own person in the covenant of works.  
To which briefly. 1. To covenant to give a thing upon some condition may nothing impeach the freeness either of the covenant, or of the gift. as to covenant with one to give him a shilling, that you have let fall, lying on the ground, if he will but stoop and take it up. And here by the way to satisfy some, who cannot endure to hear of any condition in the promises of the Gospel; which yet are 
t Mark 16. 16. John 3. 15, 16, 18. 26. Acts 16. 31. Rom. 10. 9  every where so propounded: let it be considered, that a gift or a promise may be said to be free, or not free divers ways and in divers respects: 1. Free in regard both of condition and of consideration. By consideration understanding some valuable consideration, as in common speech we use to speak. and so it is absolutely, every way free. as if I promise one to bestow a book upon him and to send it home to him, and so do. Here being neither condition nor consideration interposed. 2. Free in regard neither of condition, nor of consideration, as if I promise one to give him such a book of mine, if he will give me another of his in lieu of it. for here is both condition and consideration; which both concurring destroy the freeness of it. 3. Free in regard of consideration, though not free in regard of condition. as if I promise to give one such a book gratis, if he will but call to me at mine house for it; supposing that I dwell at next door, or near to him. Nor doth it derogate aught from the freeness of a gift, if it have been promised upon such a condition; and the promise made good upon the performance of it. no more than a Princes pardon would be deemed less free, were it granted upon condition of taking it out, and that free also for any to do, that will, of free cost, without fee. or his alms, were they propounded and published to all, that would but repair to the Court for them. Nor doth M. Wotton therefore necessarily deny the freeness of God's gracious covenant, if he hold justification and life eternal not to be promised therein but upon condition. So M. Fox answering those that might object that to him, that M. Walker here to M. Wotton. 
* Si ad certas conditiones restring●… Dei promissio, quomodò gratuitam Dei miseri●ordiam cum Paul● constituemus, quâ gratis per gratiam justificat impium? De Christ. great. justif. p. 237.  If Gods promise be restrained to certain conditions, how shall we maintain with Paul the freeness of God's mercy, whereby he freely justifyeth a sinner? 
u Imò verò quam maximè gratuitam Dei misericordiam in Christo & censeo & statuo. cum tamen salus haec per Christi meritum, non nisi sub certa quadam conditione ad nos derivetur. Ibid.  Yes, saith he, I deem and determine Goas mercy to be most free in Christ. albeit this salvation by the merit of Christ be not derived unto us but upon a certain condition. And M. Perkins before recited: 
w Reform. Cathol. Point. 4. of means of justif. Differ. 2. Reas. 1.  The condition of the covenant is by grace, as well as the substance. Whereunto add M. Pembles reason: that therefore 
* Plea for grace Sect. 2. chap. 1. p. 22.  this covenant is a compact of freest mercy, because therein life eternal is given to that, that bears not the least proportion of worth with it.  
2. That this condition is 
x Mark. 16. 16. Acts 16. 31.  Faith, the performance whereof is as available for our good, as perfect obedience at first had been, if it be an heresy; why doth not M. Walker require M. Pembles, if not bones, yet books to be burnt, as containing in them heretical and blasphemous doctrine? at least why doth he not arraign and condemn him for an heretic as well as M. Wotton? for he hath, as hath been showed, the same.  
As for the word Equivalent here, it is not M. Wottons, but M. Walkers term. whose spite and rancour against M. Wotton is such, that nothing of his can fairly pass through his fingers. To be equivalent, that is, equal in worth, and value, is one thing; (and yet I might tell M. Walker that 
y Videatur in disceptatione cum Lud. Lucio part. 1. sect. 9 Luc. script. n. 2. p. 32, 33. & T. G. Animadv. n. 7. p. 35.  chrysostom sticks not to affirm, yea stiffly maintains, that Faith in Christ is of itself a more excellent thing and of greater worth, than the keeping of God's Commandments; as I show, but disallowing, elsewhere; and yet is he not therefore deemed or condemned for an heretic:) to be reckoned or counted by God unto man in the 
Luke 20. 35. & 21. 36. 2 Thes. 1. 5, 11 which places the papists abuse to build merit and worth of works upon. Bellarm, de justific. l. 5. c. 2. and Remists notes.  covenant of grace to all purposes, in regard of aught that God requires on his part to be performed, for attaining of life eternal, as if he had in the other covenant kept the whole law, is another thing. I suppose M. Walker is not to learn a difference, and that a vast one too, between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek.  
The sixth question is, 
a Pag. 28, 29.  Whether M. Wotton affirming, that, If we be freely pardoned, than our sins were not punished in Christ our head and surety, doth not deny Christ's satisfaction for sin.  
To this I answer. he must show first, where M. Wotton so saith. For these words out of M. Wotton he never yet produced. Read 
b Relat. p. 19  the Parallel Error 7. & out of M. Wotton what is there alleged; and 
c Ibid. p. 34.  M. Wottons Answer to what is there alleged by M. Walker out of him: and you shall soon see how M. Walker here deals with M. Wotton.  
His seventh question is, 
d Pag. 29.  Whether M. Wotton be not guilty of heretical tergiversation and gross contradiction in some passages.  
The man, you see, can not speak of M. Wotton, but he must needs spit Fire and Brimstone. Every thing is either heretical or blasphemous in him. But am I, or is any man else bound to reconcile whatsoever contradictions are, if any be, or may be found in M. Wotton's writings? Or is every one that is taken in gross contradictions, of necessity thereupon to be condemned for an heretic? But in this also M. Walker may as well be believed, as 
e In his Wolf in Sheep's clothing.  where he pronounces the like of M. bradshaw's book. Were M. Wotton alive, he were best able to reconcile his own seeming differences. and indeed, for the most of them, if not all, he then did it himself.  
For the first, which 
f Pag. 29:  he citeth out of my Defence, as he terms it, though out of his own Parallel, and M. Wotton's own defence indeed. he might, if he had but put on his spectacles, have found it 
g Relat. p. 21, 22.  in the very same place assoiled; that his dispute being of the formal cause of justification, or that whereby we are made formally righteous, 
h Ib. p. 22. n. 2.  he denieth any end or use of Christ's righteousness imputed to that purpose. but 
i Ib. p. 21. n. 1.  he denieth not the imputation of it, as the meritorious cause thereof.  
Whereunto, though sufficient to take away the seeming contradiction, I add yet further what I touched upon out of 
k Preface to Treat. of justif.  M. Bradshaw before, and I find in him elsewhere; that though he deny Imputation of Christ's righteousness taken in a stricter sense, as many in this argument would have it; yet taken it in a larger sense, for that which is reckoned to a man for his benefit, so far forth as it may in that kind be useful unto him, so he denies not the Imputation of Christ's righteousness to man's justification. For thus I find in certain Theses of his written in Latin of this subject.  
1. 
l Si justificationis efficientem dicat quis justitiam Christi per modum meriti, ego planè cum eo sentio.  If any man hold Christ's Righteousness to be by way of merit the efficient cause of justification, I am wholly of his mind.  
2. 
m Si qui● Christi justitiam nostram formalem esse justitiam non contendat, nulla mihi cum illo de imputatione est controversia.  If any maintain not Christ's Righteousness to be our formal Righteousness, I have no controversy with him.  
3. 
n justitiae Christi ad beneficium imputationem ego agnosco & prae me fero.  The imputation of Christ's Righteousness to our benefit, I acknowledge and profess.  
4. 
o Non mihi unquam in mentem ne per somnium quidem, venit neg tre, nos propter Christi justitiam justificari.  It never came into my mind, not so much as in dream, to deny, that we are justified for the righteousness of Christ.  
As for what M. Walker 
p Pag. 29.  adds out of M. Wotton's Essays; they were written after our meeting, as 
q Pag. 24.  himself acknowledgeth; and therefore nothing concern either us or our censure; nor for my part did I ever see them, nor know what is in them. and yet what is it, that M. Walker thence here allegeth? That in Scripture there is no mention of Christ's merit. Which if he speak of the word merit, who will, or can deny the truth of it? yet it will not thence follow, that M. Wotton therefore denies the thing thereby signified, (the rather since that he useth the term of meritorious cause applied unto Christ and his Righteousness so frequently himself) no more then, that Calvin denied the Doctrine of the Trinity, because 
r Calvin. Instit. lib. 1. c. 13. § 3.  he acknowledgeth that term not to be found in God's Word  
To the next 
s Pag. 29.  likewise he might have found the like solution, in the very place 
t Answer to Error. 3. Propos. 2. Relat. p 27.  whence he had it; if he had been pleased to deal but half so kindly with M. Wotton, as he dealt with Socinus. For, why may not Faith, though taken properly, be said to justify, not per se, or of itself; (though Bucer, as I have showed, 
u Prae sat. Comment. in Ep st. Paulin.  so also say) albeit the word Faith be there properly taken, where it is said to be imputed for Righteousness? not for itself, as 
x Ad di cept. Lub. cum Bert.  M Wotton himself expoundeth himself, but for Christ, on whom it relies; as hath formerly been at large related.  
For, what 
y Pag. 29.  is added of Imputation, is coincident to the former: but that M. Walker with his 
z Occ●… miseros crambe● epe●…●●acc. art.  coal so o●t new dressed and dished in again, tires out h●s Readers, and may well overturn their stoi●ck●.  
The 
a Ibid.  third consists of the 
b Pag. 27.  second and 
c Pag. 18.  sixth Queres; (for M. Walker loves to turn round) wherein nothing is truly alleged out of M. Wotton, that any way crosseth Christ's satisfaction made, or the price by him paid, for us: and shall thither therefore be returned again; lest by running round in a circle after M. Walker, we grow turn-sick with him.  
The 
d Pag. 30.  fourth is not so much a contradiction found in M Wotton's writings to aught of his own, as to the words of the Apostle, Rom. 5. 19 which yet unless they be understood of formal and inherent Righteousness, (however 
e Woolf in sheep's clothing. chap. 1. § 23.  M. Walker tax M. Bradshaw for confounding these terms) M. Wottoh contradicteth not at all. And yet is it not sufficient to prove a man an heretic, because he contradicts somewhat contained in God's Word. since that every error whatsoever in any point of Divinity must of necessity so do. and M. Walker therefore, unless he dare profess himself free from all error, must by the same ground withal granted confess himself to be an heretic.  
But from his Contradictions return we to his Questions again.  
His eighth question, wherein he thinks he hath me now on the hip, is 
f Pag. 3.  How M. Gataker with a good conscience can justify and proclaim M. Wotton free from heresy, when he wilfully and perversely denies the very form, essence, and being of justification, to wit, the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, first simply rejecting it, as being of no use; and afterwards, as the formal cause of justification; (where you have the same colie served you in again) seeing he, the said M. Gataker hath publicly extolled and commended for Orthodox, the like Treatife of M. W. Bradshaw in his funeral Sermon at his burial, wherein he makes the imputation of Christ's Righteousness the form of justification.  
In which words, as 
g ●…ibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Democrates apud Stob. c. 22. s●●e, ut Plut in monit. polit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he sometime said of the people of Athens, M. Walker blows and blusters much, but does little.  
For first, I might demand of him, where I so extolled M. bradshaw's book? What I spoke of it in a short Speech before my Sermon at that time, I have formerly word for word related. But in M. Walkers hyperbolical language, every molehill is a mountain; every rivelet or drilling ril, a flood or a fair river; every but scanty or slight commemoration or commendation, an extolling; every light touch, an Invective; every error, at least an heresy.  
Secondly, whether every one that commends a book in such manner as I there did, must of necessity approve it as wholly free from all error. I was by a 
* Sir Maurice Bartlet.  worthy Knight sometime demanded mine opinion in a point concerning the seat of conscience, wherein two Divines of special note, run two divers and cross ways, 
h M. Rob. Harris in S. Paul's exercise.  the one denying it a place in any natural Faculty of the soul, usually assigned; the other affording it a room in each of them: and professing myself to descent from either, it was objected to me, 
M Sam Ward, in Balm from Gilead.  that I had by an Epistle prefixed commended the work of the one, wherein that opinion of his was found. to which I then answered that Gentleman, and so shall now M. Walker, that a book may warrantably for the main substance of it be commended as useful, yea as excellent; albeit the party so commending it suppose the Author of it to have been mistaken in some things therein contained. So did M. Cappel with the same M. bradshaw's book; albeit in some things therein he dissented then from him, when so highly yet he indeed did extol it, as you formerly have heard: and myself did somewhat the like sometime with M. elton's Catechetical work to my cost; though withal 
k In that Preface prefixed.  professing, that in divers things contained in that part of it which I had read, I was myself of another judgement.  
Thirdly, what if M. Wotton and M. Bradshaw do not herein at all differ, or cross either other? but may very well be reconciled? may not M. Gataker then at least with a good conscience commend M. bradshaw's book, and yet pronounce M. Wotton free from heresy, when he saith herein nothing that contradicts that, which M. Bradshaw is here said to affirm? And that it is so indeed, and in M. bradshaw's own judgement was so, may be easily made to appear. For doth not M. Bradshaw in his Preface plainly show, that the word of Imputation is overstrictly taken by some Divines, in which sense M. Wotton seems to him to have denied it; whereas the word might well be understood in another, and a larger sense, professing himself so to use it? So that the bare word rejected by the one, and admitted by the other, doth not necessarily imply any contradiction between them. no more then S. Paul's words, that 
l Rom. 3. 28.  A man is justified by faith without works, doth any way contradict what S. James saith, that 
m jam. 2. 24.  A man is justified by works, and not by faith only.  
And here I shall again crave leave of my Reader, to insert a short passage out of some writings interchanged between these two Christian brethren; both, I hope, now with God, and agreeing in all things; though in some particulars they dissented, while they lived here.  
M. Wotton in his Animadversions, which I have by me, on M. bradshaw's book, thus excepts.  
The third opinion denying all imputation of Christ's righteousness is said to be somewhat erroneous. Yet the same opinion held only in that strict sense of imputation, which the Author himself rejecteth, and that upon good ground, as he acknowledgeth, is therefore cleared from all erroneousnes. For how can that be erroneous, that is held on good ground?  
To which M. Bradshaw thus answereth:  
Tho upon good ground, as to me seems, you deny imputation in that sense only; yet your denial of all imputation may notwithstanding that be erroneous; being grounded upon a supposal of that which I think is erroneous, that there is no other kind of imputation but that, which is answerable to that strict sense aforesaid.  
By which words it appears, that the difference herein between them was rather in words, then in points: and that M. Wotton's error, as M Bradshaw apprehended it, was only concerning the use of a word, not concerning any point of faith.  
Fourthly, suppose the difference were not verbal, but real, not in words only, but in sense and meaning too; yet would it not therefore necessarily follow, that M. Wotton denieth the very form, essence, and being of justification, because he denies that, which M. Bradshaw affirms to be the Formal cause of it; or that M. Gataker must therefore of necessity pronounce M. Wotton an heretic; unless first it be proved that that is indeed and truth the formal cause, of justification, which M. Bradshaw hath assigned: (which being found only in a short Summary annexed to his Treatise, 
n Woolf. chap. 2. Error. 8. on chap. 2. n. 11. The form is the pleading of the said righteousness or innocency, etc.  M. Walker himself deems to contradict what is averred in the book; nor is it at all in the Latin edition,) and that M. Gataker also is therein of the same mind with M. Bradshaw, which for aught M. Walker knows, he may not be.  
Fiftly, I should desire to know of M. Walker, whether he hold not the imputation of Christ's active obedience to be the formal cause of our justification: and if he so do; which, I suppose, he will not deny; whether he can with a good conscience pronounce Pareus free from heresy; notwithstanding that 
o De activ. & pass▪ Chr. Obed. p. 181.  he denies the imputation of it unto justification, as derogatory from the al-sufficiency of Christ's sufferings and his sacrifice; and consequently (by M. Walkers inference) takes away the very form, essence and being of justification. if he cannot, how comes it to pass, that he reckons him here so oft among his Orthodox Writers, that condemn M. Wotton's opinions as heretical and blasphemous? if he can, I see not, why M. Gataker may not do the like by M. Wotton, forought here objected. the argument being as strong (if not stronger) against the one as against the other.  
Sixtly, suppose it were an error, and a dangerous one to, that M. Wotton maintains; whence knows M. Walker? or how is he able to prove, that he holds it 
n Pag. 30.  wilfully, that is, against his own knowledge, (for that seems to be intimated) and perversely, that is, as I conceive him, obstinately? to make him 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Titus 3. 11.  a damned heretic. For I suppose, he will not assume to himself any 
o 1 Cor. 12. 10▪  extraordinary gift in discerning of spirits. and if he will pretend, that he discerns it by his deeds; which is hard to do in a point of mere Theory; let him take heed, what manner of spirit by his carriage in this business, being matter of practice, he gives men ground, to suspect or conclude himself to be led by.  
Lastly, suppose M. Walker to be so sharpsighted, and that he can pierce and peer so narrowly into M. Wotton's conscience, as to discern that he doth wilfully and perversely maintain what he holds: yet unless that M. Gataker be as quicksighted herein as M Walker, and that he be able to descry in M. Wotton that wilfulness and perverseness that M. Walker doth, he may still with a good Conscience justify M. Wotton, and pronounce him (for proclamations he makes none) free from heresy; as well as the rest of his reverend brethren have done, notwithstanding all M. Walkers evidence given in against him. since that 
* Rom. 14. 13. 1 Cor. 4. 5. & 13. 5. 7.  no man is bound to pronounce or deem of his Christian brother, on the worse part especially, further than himself can see.  
His ninth question (to cut it somewhat shorter, that the reader's stomach may be the les troubled in taking it) is this, 
p Pag. 30.  How the faithful united to Christ, as their head, and made thereby partakers of his righteousness and whole obedience to God's Law, and thereby constituted righteous before God, can without heretical pravity be denied to be formally righteous by that righteousness.  
To which I answer: that first he presumes some things here that are to be proved; and are (as he well knows,) by Divines not a few of the best note not acknowledged; as, that Christ's Righteousness consisting in his active obedience is part of that whereby the faithful are made righteous.  
Besides, that many things have the faithful interest in by virtue of their union and communion with Christ; which yet are not imputed unto them for the justifying of them, or for the making of them to stand righteous in God's sight. The Wife by virtue of her union and conjunction with her Husband, hath a right to, and interest in, all that he hath, yea and in himself to. Yet is it not necessary, that whatsoever she hath joint interest in with him, should therefore go to the payment of her debts formerly contracted: especially, if sufficient be found in any part of it. And that without hereticall-pravity therefore, that which M. Wotton is here charged with, may be held; especially, unless we will question the sufficiency of Christ's death for the discharge of our sins; Pareus 
q Ex de Act. & Pass. Chr. Obed. p. 181.  his words (if he be at least of any credit with M. Walker) abovementioned will intimate; yea the whole discourse, whence they are taken, will evidently show.  
For his tenth and last question, the contradiction is the very same concerning Imputation, that was 
r Pag. 29.  formerly propounded, the first in the seventh question. For M. Walker doth but roll 
s ●ingens quod Sisyphus versat Saxum, sudans nitendo, neque p●●ficit hilum. Ex Epico aliquo ●ic. Tuscul. l. 1.  Sisyphus his stone up and down here, until he tyre, if not himself, yet his Reader.  
The question itself is, 
t Pag. 31.  Whether M. Wotton be not possessed with the spirit of Socinian blindness and giddiness, when he derides Orthodox Divines, for making every believer justified by imputation of Christ's satisfactory obedience, a Redeemer, Saviour and Satisfier for all the Elect and Faithful.  
What by Socinian blindness and giddiness M. Walker means, I wean not. We use to ask, who are blinder than they that will not see? and in this kind M. Walker hath bewrayed too much blindness in this book. As for giddiness, I know not, who are more likely to be possessed of it, than such as run round, like an Horse in a Mil.  
But how, or where, doth M. Wotton thus deride our Orthodox Divines? This crime thus fastened upon M. Wotton, M. Walker thus makes good. 
u Ibid.  For in one of his written papers thus he argues: If Christ's Righteousness and Satisfaction be imputed to every believer, then must every believer be accounted a Redeemer, Justifier, and Satisfier for all the Elect. But this is absurd. Ergò, the Antecedent is fals.  
Where first, I might demand of M. Walker, whether a man must of necessity be deemed to deride him, whom he disputes with, if he shall affirm something to follow from that he holdeth, which he pronounces to be absurd,  
2. Whether this speech of M. Wotton were given in to us at our meeting by M. Walker, as part of his Evidence, to make good his Plea against M. Wotton. which unless it were, as it was not, which may appear by his Parallel; albeit it should contain rank heresy in it; yet concerns it not us, nor our sentence in clee●ing M. Wotton. For 
x judex procedere debet secundum allegata & probata. Reg. jur.  what judge is bound to sentence any man upon evidence not produced?  
3. As for the matter itself, if M. Wotton do not understand aright, what those Orthodox Divines mean; as 
y Ibid.  M. Walker affirms: sure the mistaking of another man's meaning, and thereupon supposing therefore, or pretending, that some absurdity follows from what he saith, doth not in my weak apprehension make a man guilty of heresy. or if it be presumed that it doth, I doubt much, whether M. Walker himself may not be deemed one of the greatest heretics under the Sun.  
Thus much for M. Walkers questio●●. whereunto he saith 
a Pag. 31.  he could add divers others. But if they be as little to the purpose as these; (which howsoever, one only excepted, concerning mine extolling of M. bradshaw's book, do no more concern me to answer, than any other of the eight) he may do well to keep them where they are: unless he be desirous to acquaint the world further with his restless spirit (which he hath sufficiently done here already) albeit he have neither new matter to inquire of, nor any matter of moment, whereby to take of the truth of that, which under good hands and of oredit sufficient; hath been related. And the rather may he be advised to conceal them, unless they be more savoury, then what hear next ensueth, of 
b Pag. 32.  a stinking issue of running cankers in a most foul body, and rotten carcose, that M. Gataker, like a sepulchers dog, hath scratched and raked out of the grave, in writing and publishing of his Relation: (in which passage also he shows himself turn-sick again:) otherwise his Readers (to return his own words) may well be forewarned, to stop their noses, ere they offer to read them.  
Hence he proceeds to charge me; first, as 
c Pag. 3●  profuse and prodigal of my reputation, in subscribing to M. Wotton's positions, that they contain neither heresy nor blasphemy. wherein if my reputation●ly at the stake, theirs must lie together with mine, that subscribed together with me.  
And secondly, with 
d Ibid.  breach of piety and charity, virulency, defect of humanity and common honesty, in falsely fathering that on those dead Saints, M. Randol, and M. Stock, and those living pious men, D. Gouge and M. Downham, a subscription to those errors, that they saw no heresy or blasphemy in them. All which foul imputations, which herein he would make me guilty of, light full upon those, whom he pretends to be wronged by me, rather than upon me, who relate but their testimony under their own hands. For if ought be falsely fathered upon the deceased, whither of the twain stand guilty of it, they that witness the thing under their hands, or he that barely relates what they witness? Besides I would fain know, what virulency is, or can be, in a precise relation of an other man's words, if there be no virulent matter or manner of speech in them: or if ought be in them of that nature, who ought to bear the burden of it, the Relater, or the Author.  
As for his old Cuckoos song, 
e I●g. 33.  of his blaming our subscription, protesting against it offer to dispute, and mine interposing so, that he could not be heard, nor obtain a copy of M. Wotton's answers, with such other idle repetitions; they have been before heard and answered: and do here serve only to raise the bulk of the book; but do no whit help to prove, what M. Walker here intends, that I have falsely fathered aught upon those Saints deceased. Yea they are of much weight to evince the truth of that, which M. Walker here so eagerly opposeth. For what needed M. Walker to have kept all this coil, and have made all this ado if no such thing had then been, or were about to ●e done?  
As little to the same purpose, or to any purpose at all, is it, what he telleth 
f 〈…〉.  of a consutation of so much as he could remember of M. Wotton's answers, which he showed to D. Gouge and M. Downham. who I hope, wanted no baiting by him, for what they had done. and that afterward he obtained liberty by a friend to copy them out, labouring for nothing ever more earnestly then to have them published; which they may believe him that list: for who or what hindered him from publishing of them, when he had them? and that he desired so much the publishing of them, to free himself from those falls reports, that M. Gataker would now lay & fasten upon him, p. 39 in which whole page there is nothing but a short sum of what was before delivered; of M. Walkers charge and challenge, and his evidence given in, all under his own hand; M. Wotton's answer, as himself penned it; the verdict and sentence of the persons appealed to, testified under the survivours hands, and M. Walkers renewing of his charge in print, which himself will not deny; and what falls reports of mine can there be in all this? or if the publishing of M. Wotton's answer will free M. Walker from falls reports, I have therein done M. Walker, it seems, no small pleasure, and fulfilled, if we may believe him, his earnest desire. So far, he saith, he was from pressing D. Bayly to conceal them, as M. Gataker would intimate, p. 37. where I say no such matter, but say only of the Subscription, that the Doctor refused to deliver it, whether pressed by M. Walker to detain it or no, I wot not, M. Walker himself best knoweth. And indeed what was it to any of us, whether M. Walker had had M. Wotton's answers, or no? This is therefore all but 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. ad Olympiad ●p. 13.  smoke and dust, raised to dim or dasel men's eyes, that they may not see that, that M. Walker would fain have concealed, and kept (were it possible) from their sight.  
Which having thus made some way to, as he supposed, (therein overflattering himself; as 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dem●…h. Olyath. 3.  what men earnestly desire, they are easily induced to believe) he falleth now again more directly upon it; and 
i Pag. 33.  tells us upon what occasion, M. Wotton by a falls suggestion, drew D. Gouge and M. Downham some years after to give a falls attestation: (for that is it, that he laboureth throughout this whole Pamphlet, well knowing how nearly it concerns him, to prove) 
k Pag. 34.  which M. Stock and D. Bayly abhorred to do, repenting what favour they had showed M. Wotton at first.  
But here still 
l Dicit ille multa quidem multis locis: sed aqua ●eret, ut aiunt. Cic. Offic. l. 3. Et ad Q. fratr. l. 2. ep. 7. Quod dictum fuerat actum iri, non vst actum: in hac causd mihi aqua heret. Quod Erasm. adag. 1300. malè cepit & accepit; cum in aqua haerere dictum voluit. quem nec H. Steph. expedivit. Est Graecorum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Suid  Aqua haeret, the water stays, and doth not run clearly away. Nor is M. Walker with all his shifts, able to wind himself out. For is the attestation by M. Gataker related, and by M. Sam. Wotton published, truly related, or no? If it be truly related, then M. Gataker in relating it, hath delivered nothing but what is true; to wit, that two such men have under their hands given such an attestation. Again, is the attestation itself true, or no? they that gave it, I hope, will maintain it to be true. and then have I averred nothing concerning the issue of that meeting, but what is avowed by the testimony of two witnesses, beyond all just exception, and whom M. Walker of all other 
m Adversus propri● nulla est exceptio. Chamier. pa●sirat. tom. 3. l. 3. c. 3. § 4.  cannot with any reason reject, being men chosen to hear and sentence the cause by himself. Who therefore, if he shall still persist to affirm it to be falls; I will say no more, but as that Noble Roman sometime accused by a mean fellow of a very unlikely crime, 
n Varius Sucro●e●sis AEmylium Scaurum regiâ m●rcede corruptum imperium papuli Roma●i prodi●isse ●i●: AE●ylius Scauru● huic se affinem esse culpae negat. ●iri creditis? Val. Max. l. 3. c. 7. ex. 8. Fab. instit. l. 1. c. 11. 〈◊〉. in Ci●. pro Scaur.  Varius affirms it; Scaurus denies it. Whether of the two do you credit? so I here, M. Walker the party interressed says it; D. Gouge and M. Downham two of his judges (for 
* Pag. 21, 24.  so himself terms them) men indifferent and unpartial (however M. Walker is pleased to tax them) deny it: you may choose whether of the two you will be pleased to believe.  
Thus at length M. Walker hath dispatched himself, as concerning our meeting, by himself procured and the issue of it. wherein he hath so laboured to vindicate himself, by many falsehoods inserted into his report of it; and, not so much by recharging M. Wotton, as by traducing his judges, as men partial and unconscionable, and such as in favour of M. Wotton did what they were even then ashamed of when they did it, and by all means therefore contended to have it concealed and kept from the light and sight of others after they had done it; and lastly by heaping on me a whole load of opprobrious terms, for having a hand in the publishing of it; that in seeking thus to salve his credit, he may well therein be deemed, to have done no more then to have 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Zenob. ad. 648. Diog. 750. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theocr. idyl. 16. quod Erasm. ad. 1441. nigrum silicem, malè vertit, cum luteum laterem debuisset. Ter. pborm. 1. 4. Purgemme? laterem lavem. Hier. ad. Pelag. l. 1. Nugaris, nec meministi illius Proverbii, in eo. lem luto volutaris, imò laterem lavas. crudum scil. qui lavando fit lutulentior.  washed over a raw brick but, or to have 
p Quod est plus, quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut Philostr. Epist. Lutum lut▪ purgare.  covered miry dirt with reeking dung.  
Howbeit, though he have thus rid his hands of our meeting, yet his spite and malice against M. Wotton and me is not yet at an end.  
For, as for my Postscript, it is 
q Pag. 34.  so frivolous, that a short answer will serve: 
r Pag. 35.  one short breath is sufficient to blow it away. And yet let M. Walker who thus here vaunteth himself, like an other 
s Qui legiones difftat spiritu, ut ventus fo●…, au● panniculam tectoriam. Plaut. Milit. 1. 1.  Pyr gopolinices, know, that with all his boisterous blusterings he hath not stirred it one jot, much les blown it away, as he brags; having not so much as blown upon a good part of it; because, it seems, he was loath to spend so much breath in vain, that might better be kept for some other use.  
My 
t Pag. 34.  main charge here against him, he saith, is iniquity; and indeed so 
u Relat. p. 19  it is, for yoking M. Wotton with Peter Abeilard, and with Servetus and Socinus, as agreeing with them in such damnable and detestable dotages, as they held and maintained, and for which they were condemned as blasphemous heretics; and that upon such slight grounds, as hath formerly been showed. But 
w Pag. 34.  the iniquity, M. Walker tells me, shall return upon mine own head.  
And why so? first, for Abeilard, 
x Ibid.  because S. Bernard (whose Saintship yet I suppose, need be no part of our Creed; especially, if all be true that our Walter Mapes 
y In Epistolis nondum editis.  reports of him) saith he held, that our sins are not punished in Christ, and that it had been injustice in God to punish one for another, and to impute the obedience of one to another.  
I demand not of M. Walker, where Abeilard saith aught of the imputing of the obedience of one to another, or where Bernard charges him with the denial of it, as a thing unjust. though I suppose, he would not easily be able to show either. But I ask, where M. Wotton ever said, what Abeilard is here reported to have held, that our sins are not punished in Christ; or, that it were injustice in God to punish one for another. If he cannot show this (as hitherto he hath not done) he is (and may be deservedly so censured) a malicious slanderer of his brother. Howbeit, if these words of M. Wotton, which M. Walker could not be ignorant of, do not speak the direct contrary; let some part yet of this imputatiou be taken of, if you so please. 
a Answer to Error. 7. R●lat. p 34.  Christ, saith M▪ Wotton, hath been punished for us; we are pardoned for his punishment, Esay 53. 5 What can be spoken more plainly? M Walkers iniquity therefore herein, is not wiped of, much less returned upon me. Besides I find in his Latin Theses before mentioned this Assertion: 
b jilud 〈◊〉, & Christi p●rp●●siones no●is imp●t●●, & not p●opt●r illas ●●nia●u peccator●m & absolution●m 〈◊〉 reat d Deo ●…sequi. quo uno 〈◊〉 ●…us, ni●il ad Script●r as explicandas accommodatius, aut di●i, aut c●g tariposse conteu. 〈◊〉 Th●s. 5.  This I believe, that Christ's sufferings are imputed to us; and we for them obtain from God, pardon of our fins, and freedom from the guilt of them. Then which I maintain, that nothing can be spoken or conceived more true, or more apt for the unfolding of Scripture. Which how well it sorts with what M. Walker charges on Abeilard, let any man judge.  
But against M. Wotton 
c Furore pestis p●…ma in ●…simo. Prad●nt. in Rom.  the worst comes last. For M. Walker will prove him to conspire with Abeilard, Servetus and Socinus in a worse matter than all this; and that is in the denial of Christ's deity. For, 
d Pag. 34, 35.  if they denied in plain words the eternal deity of Christ; so also M. Wotton did in effect. For he held that Christ's obedience did serve only to justify himself, and to bring him into high favour with God: so that God justifieth us by him as by a favourite, only upon condition of our trusting in him. Now where is the infinite valour of his Deity, if he needed justification and favour for himself.  
Did ever man read a charge more malicious, or more slenderly backed?  
For not to question again, whether Abeilard, (
e Pag. 34.  which M. Walker expressly by name affirms apart of him) did ever deny, and that in plain terms too, the eternal deity of Christ; or where Bernard, or any other saith, that he so did. Tho it be a sin (we say) even to belly the devil; any man much more and so far is Peter Abeilard from denying it in plain terms, that in precise and full words he affirms it; (
f Credo filium per omni● Patri esse coaequalem; scil. aeternitate, potestate, etc. Petr. Abeilard. conses. sid. ●d Hel.  I believe, saith he, that the Son is in all things coequal with the Father; to wit, in Eternity, Power, or Authority, etc. 
g Nec audis Arium. Ibid.  condemning withal and detesting Arius (whom Bernard was pleased to say he had some 
h Sapit Arium. Bern. ep. 192.  smach of) as one 
i Perverso ingenio actus, imò daemoniaco seductus spiritu. Abeilard. ubi supr.  led by a perverse disposition, and led aside by a devilish spirit, for 
k Gradus facit in Trmitate: Patrem majorem, Fi●ium d●gmatizans min●rem. Idem ibid.  making degrees in the Trinity, and teaching the Father to be greater than the Son, and the Son lesser than the Father. That, which it is true indeed, that 
l Ponit in Trinitate gradus, constituit Deum Patrem esse plen●m p●…tiam: I i●●um, quandam p●…tiam: Sp. sa●ctum, n●ll●m potentiam. B. 〈◊〉. ●p. 190.  Bernard chargeth Peter to have done; (and were it true, yet were not in plain terms to deny the eternal Deity of Christ,) but Peter flatly denies to be found in any writings of his; yea 
m Hec verba per ma●tiam 〈…〉, 〈◊〉 tam ●…tica quam di●…ca, d●t●stor, 〈◊〉: eaque cum autore suo paritor 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 in Ap●l●g.  professing to abhor it, not as heretical only, but as devilish; nor refusing to be pronounced, 
n ●…riat criptis, nen solu●… hereticum, verum etiam heresiarcham 〈…〉.  not an heretic simply, but an Arch-heretick, if it could out of any work of his be produced.  
But to let this pass, I say; which little concerns us, howsoever it were with Abeilard; save that 
o Ibid. justitiae est, 〈…〉 cuiqu● trib●ere Cicer●… juvent. l. 2 Cornif. ad Heren. l. 3.  the rule of justice and equity requires to do every one right; and 
p Ma●h. 〈◊〉. 32. Qu●…ri non vis, alterine ●…is. Alex. Se●●r. Hicron. ad Algas. Bern. de 〈…〉. l. 1.  that we deal with others as we would be dealt with ourselves.  
First, suppose that a denial of Christ's deity might be necessarily deduced from some Positions by M. Wotton maintained. would it thence follow that M. Wotton denies the Deity of Christ? It is no good consequence. For some thing may follow truly and necessarily from what a man holds; and yet he not hold it, but deny it; yea strongly and stiffly not in dispute only, but even in judgement oppose it, because he deems the consequence, whereby it is thence deduced, unsound, For example: That which the Lutherans hold concerning the corporal presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, together with the bread, doth by necessary consequence overthrow the truth of Christ's humanity. Do any of our Divines therefore charge them, (though 
q Legantur Alb. G●…eri Abs●r●●rum absurdissima, absurda Calvinistica. aliaque ejusmodi istorum scripta.  they walk along with M. Walker in the way he here takes, in their writings against us) with the denial of Christ's humane nature? Or will M. Walker therefore dare to pronounce Luther an heretic, as denying the truth of Christ's humanity? albeit we know that every true, natural, and humane body is confined to some one certain individual place or other, and limited with such dimensions as all men we see are; which of Christ's cannot be truly said, if that be admitted. Yea to turn the edge of M. Walkers argument the other way. By the same reason, from some consequences of M. richardson's, (whose authority M. Walker I am sure, will not waive) a man may prove, that Turks, jews and Pagans hold a Trinity of Persons in the Deity, and the Evangelical doctrine of Christ's Incarnation. For what Turk, jew, or Pagan, of any but ordinary apprehension in intellectuals, if he acknowledge a God, doth not hold, that that God doth most perfectly understand himself? Now M. Richardson in some Essays of his; wherein (directly contrary, as I take it, to what 
r 1 Cor. 2. 9  the Apostle avers; and yet do I not therefore account him an heretic, no more than that other Noble 
s Phil. Mornaeus Dom. de P●essis lib. de verit. Re●●g. Christian.  Lord of great note, that hath laboured in the like Argument) he endeavours to prove, that men by the very light of nature and use of reason alone, may attain to the knowledge of those two main mysteries of Faith and grounds of the Gospel; and that they may thereby be demonstrated to those who never heard of or knew them before; he doth from this Position as generally granted and agreed on, by a continued chain of consequences, as so many links or rundels necessarily depending each on other, thus argu: God understandeth himself most perfectly, ergò he is understood of himself most perfectly: ergò there is a most perfect understander, and a most perfect understood; and both these are one essence. Again, a most perfect understander, and a most perfect understood: ergò a most perfect conceiver, and a most perfect conceived: ergò a most perfect begetter, and a most perfect begotten: ergò a production of that which is of the same kind: ergò of a most perfect Son: ergò by a most perfect Father: which are the Father and the Son. Again, God understandeth himself most perfectly: ergò to be the most perfect being: ergò he willeth himself as the most perfect good: ergò from the understander and the understood proceeds a mutual desire of their essence: ergò a spirit or anhelitus to the same: which is the holy Ghost proceeding from both. Again, what man is there Turk, jew, or Pagan, that hath any regard of conscience to God ward, but holds that he hath at some time or other offended God by doing unjustly in some one kind or other? now hence doth the same Author by a Stoical Sorites, or heap of Ergoes, deduce a necessity of our Saviour Christ's Incarnation, for that man's salvation, on this wise. Man's conscience telleth him, that he hath done unjustly: ergò transgressed the rule of justice: ergò the eternal Law: ergò the Law of the eternal God: ergo he is obnoxious to the eternal justice of God: ergò to an infinite punishment: ergò he must be answerable to the same: ergò by suffering eternally, if he answer it in himself, or by any other finite: ergò, he must perish eternally, unless an infinite person undertake the same; who being infinite can infinitely satisfy with finite sufferings: ergò he must perish eternally, or believe an infinite person satisfying for him, as an infinite person offended by him; and that (in conclusion) is Christ, God and Man. For to avoid prolixity, I will cut off the residue of this train. Thus from M. Richardsons' grounds, by M. Walkers help, there is an incomparablo benefit befallen the whole world, for by this means great part of it, though they never heard of Christ, are suddenly become Christians. For they hold the main Principles of the Gospel as certainly, nay more certainly then M. Wotton denies Christ's Deity. Since that the one follows, you see, necessarily (unless M. Richardson be much mistaken) from what they hold; whereas the other by M. Walkers good leave, hath not as yet been showed to follow so from aught by M. Wotton maintained. and yet, I doubt much, that if trial be taken, we shall scarce find them sound in the Christian faith for all this.  
In the next place therefore, let us see, what it is, that M. Walker, here tells us, that M. Wotton maintained, whereby he hath brought upon himself so heavy a guilt as the denial of the eternal deity of the Son of God. He held, saith he, that Christ's obedience did serve only to justify himself, and to bring him into high favour with God: so that God justifies us by him as by a favourite, only upon condition of our trusting in him.  
Where M. Wotton saith all this, M. Walker tells us not: and he that twits M. Gataker for his frequent quotations, might justly be taxed both here and elsewhere for a defect, if not default, herein; and that such, as rendereth him, not without good cause, suspected of some juggling. For that Christ's obedience serves to justify himself, I suppose, no man can deny. since that 
s John 3. 21. & 8. 46. 38. & 18. 23.  our Saviour himself doth thereby usually justify himself against the false aspersions of his slanderous adversaries. Howbeit to give M. Walker herein the more satisfaction, we will present him with two testimonies, the one a strangers, the other our own Countreymans. Thus than Gomarus, one of the greatest and eagerest Antiarminian. 
t Nifi perfecta ad fuisset obedientia, ipsemet peccator esset, & pro se puniendus. Fr. Gomar. dispute elenct. de justif. mat. & form. thes. 12.  Christ, had he not performed perfect Obedience, had himself been a sinner, and to be punished for himself. And thus M. Dearing in his Lectures upon part of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
u M. Edw. Dearing on Hebr. Le●●. 2. p. 26. in 8.  Our Saviour Christ, being the eternal Son of God, through the work of the holy Ghost, was made man of the Virgin Mary, and born without original sin; and by the same spirit filled still 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 thou shalt live. but hitherto as he is righteous, so he is righteous for himself; and only that man is blessed, who was conceived by the holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary. What more pregnant?  
Again, that Christ for this his obedience was in grace and favour with God, both the Evangelist witnesseth, and himself professeth. 
* John 10. 17.  The Father loves me, saith he, because I lay down my life; as 
w john. 10. 18. & 14. 31.  my Father hath willed me to do. and why not also, 
x John 8. 29.  because I do always those things, that are pleasing to him? And that Christ 〈◊〉 a favourite, helps to bring us into grace with God, I hope no true Christian, either doubts or denies. 
y Math. 3. 17. & 17. 5.  God himself so oft implying and intimating the same, and the Apostle so expressly telling us, that 
z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epes. 1. 6.  God hath graciously accepted us in his beloved. For as for the condition of trusting in Christ, enough hath formerly been said: and he must needs wilfully wink, that refuseth to take notice of that which so 
a John 1. 12. & 3. 15, 16, 18, 36. & 6. 35, 40, 47. & 7. 38, 39 & 9 35, 36. & 11. 25, 26. & 12. 36. Acts 10. 43. & 13. 39 & 16. 31. Rom. 4. 5, 24. & 9 33. & 10. 11, etc.  frequently he must needs meet with in the Gospel, if he but superficially turn over the Books of the New Testament. not to add, that hence Christian Writers, as well 
b Origen. in Io●●. hom. 32. Gregor. Naz. ●rat. 37: Athanas. cont. Arian. orat. 3. Cyril. de Trindial. 4.  ancient as 
c Vrsin. Catech. explic. quaest. 33. § 3. rat 5. Stegman. disput. 5. quaest. 13.  modern, confirm the Deity of Christ, because we are 
d John 12. 36. & 14. 1.  willed, and 
e Rom. 15. 12. 1 Tim. 4. 10.  said to believe in him, and pronounced 
f Psalm 2. 12.  happy for so doing; the very 
* Bellarm. de Christ. l. 1. c. 5. loc 1. Et Catechism. Trident. Pii. 5. jussu editus. p. 107.  Papists themselves, though against themselves, applying the same also to this purpose.  
But that M. Wotton any where hath affirmed, that Christ's obedience serves for this end ONLY to justify himself, (which comes short of what Socinus himself acknowledgeth) or to bring him into favour with God; (as if he had not been in favour with him before) is more, I believe then M. Wotton ever writ or said: sure I am, more it is, than M. Walker gave in in Evidence against him, when he laid as mach in his charge as he was able to reach to, no les than Heresy and Blasphemy. And I am the rather enduced to believe that herein he wrongs M. Wotton, because no such restrictive particle is found in that passage of M. Wotton, out of which M. Walker seemeth to have picked this vile calumny. His words are in a Latin Discourse 
g Parallel. Error. 6. n. 1. Relat. p. 18.  cited thence by M. Walker himself, these. All that good will, wherewith God embraceth us, proceeds from that favour that Christ is in with God. Now in these things is that for the most part contained, that he is by nature the Son of God; that he is perfectly holy; that he hath performed obedience every way perfect, both by fulfilling the Law, and by perfect performance of all things belonging to the Office of a Mediator. Whence it follows, that those that believe are gracious with God also for the Righteousness of Christ. Whereunto I add, what follows in the same Discourse a little after. Now Faith is, as a mean, a condition, and, if you please, an instrument of partaking this goodwill of God in Christ. So the part (or office) of Faith is no other, then by believing in Christ and receiving of him, to perform that which God requires of us to the reconciling, that is, the justifying and adopting of us; that we may be partakers of the Redemption and life eternal procured for us by Christ. And towards the end: Although I grant, that the justification of a sinner, that is, the Remission of his sins, is to be fetched properly from Christ's Obedience in the suffering of death: yet by his Righteousness also in fulfilling the Law, I suppose that we obtain favour with God. Which words of M Wotton, how they suit and agree, with what M. Walker would here fasten upon him, I leave to be deemed by any one, that hath not his eyes, either bloodshot, or gallshot, as it is to be feared M. Walkers were, when he either read that, or wrote this.  
Yea but, how doth M. Walker, from what he either finds in M. Wotton, or fathers on him, extract a denial of Christ's Deity? A man had need of a quick fight indeed to discern that, as himself hereafter delivereth himself of it. 
h Pag. 〈◊〉.  Now where, saith he, is the infinite value of Christ's Deity, if he have need of justification and favour for himself?  
And is not such a question as this, think ye, enough to stop any man's mouth, or to open it rather, and enforce him to condemn M. Wotton without more ado for an Arian? But let us put M. Walkers Argument into form and figure, that we may the better descry and see the force of it. Thus than it must be.  
Whosoever saith; that Christ hath need of justification and favour for himself, denies his eternal Deity, for he denies the infinite value of his Deity.  
But M. Wotton holds, that Christ had need of justification and favour for himself.  
Therefore he denies Christ's eternal Deity.  
The Proposition of this Syllogism may very well be questioned. For doth not the Word of God say expressly, that 
i Math. 11. 19 Luke 7. 29, 35. 1▪ Tim. 3. 16.  Christ was, and is justified? doth not the same word say, that 
k Math. 3. 17.  he was in favour, yea that 
l Luke 2. 52.  he grew in favour, both with God and man? or was not either of these for himself?  
Yea but, peradventure he had no need of either for himself.  
Surely those things, without which Christ as man, could not be, either accepted with God, or entirely happy; those it cannot be denied but that be had need of, and need of for himself. But Christ as man, unless he had been in a justifiable estate, could not have been accepted with God; nor could he have been entirely happy, had he not been in favour with God. And what will hence follow, M. Walker may easily conceive, if he be pleased so to do. Which if to acknowledge be a denial of the infinite value of Christ's d●ity, I know not how any sound divine, exactly herein treading in the tract of God's Word, can be acquitted of Arianism. Nor could M. Walker do the Arians or Socinians a greater pleasure, then if he were able to prove and make good what herein he affirmeth. True it is indeed, that a man may be said to have need of a thing two ways: first, when a man wants somewhat, that is requisite for him to have, when he should have use of it. and so our Saviour Christ had need of meat when he was, 
m Math 4. 2.  hungry; and of drink, when he was 
n John 4. 6, 7. & 19 28. 〈◊〉  athirst. but so he never needed any spiritual grace, or favour with God. Secondly, when a man can not well be without somewhat, the continuance whereof with him is useful and requisite for him. And so Christ, as man, may well be said to have had need even for himself of such Righteousness as might justify him; (else he must have been 
o John 8. 46.  guilty of some sin, and 
p Joh. 9 16, 24.  such a sinner, as the Pharisees unjustly charged him to be;) and of such favour with God, as should make him, and whatsoever he should do, acceptable unto God.  
But some question here may well be made, what should move M. Walker thus to shape his Argument, when he comes to conclude it. For in his Proposition here, wherein his Conclusion lies couched, he qualifieth that, which in his Charge against M. Wotton that should make up his Assumption, with a note of restriction there inserted, but here omitted, he had made to sound much more harshly and heinously, then as here he repeats it. For there it was that M. Wotton should hold, that Christ's Obedience served ONLY to justify himself: whereas here the word only is wholly left out, as no part of his Argument. Was it, think we, because his conscience gave him some after-check, and told him that he had charged more upon M. Wotton than he was able to make good? Or was it because his own heart suggested unto him, that this was too gros and palpable a falsehood to fasten upon him, who every where professeth his opinion to the contrary, affirming the merit and benefit of Christ's obedience to redound also unto us? so in the very same place, as M. Walker himself also 
q Parall. Error 6. n. 2. Relat. p. 18.  citys him, he saith, If question be concerning the formal cause of justification, I exclude from it either obedience of Christ. (to wit, both active and passive.) If of the Efficient by way of merit, I maintain it to depend upon both. And his false dealing therefore therein might by his own allegations be easily discovered.  
But whatsoever it was that made him thus to stagger, is not greatly material, only it may not be unusefully observed, to disclose in M. Walker that, wherewith 
r Pag. 31.  formerly he taxed M. Wotton; to wit, such agiddines, procured by his so oft turning round, that he forgetteth the medium of his Argument, wherein the pith of it should consist, though laid down but two or three lines before, when he comes to conclude it.  
As for the charge itself, to clear M. Wotton of Arianism (that which the devil himself, I suppose, would never have charged him with; but 
s Pag. 34.  though in words, saith M. Walker he profess the contrary, yet in effect he maintains;) I shall not need to say much: his Sermons extant, on the first of S. John's Gospel will superaboundantly plead for him, and show it to be a most shameless slander: unless that M. Walker, by his Chemical faculty, by which he is able to extract every thing out of any thing, can pick Arianism out of those 
* Sermons 1, 2, 3.  Discourses, wherein the same is very eagerly opposed, and as substantially refuted.  
From this fresh Charge, which had it been given in, when time was, and that so strongly backed, and clearly demonstrated, we could not possibly have avoided it, but must of necessity have found M. Wotton an heretic, Socinian or Arian, no great matter whether if not both: he proceeds to 
t Pag. 35.  the poornes of M. G●takers defence; thinking to excuse M. Wotton, by naming other heresies of Servetus and Socinus, that M. Wotton held not, nor did M. Walker charge him with: and pleading, that, because they were condemned for other heresies, therefore this was no heresy: which yet M. Walker knows to be heresy and blasphemy; and other learned proclaim it so to be: yea M. Wotton's own conscience told him that his opinions were condemned for such; which for fear of shame therefore he sometimes denied; and frequently contradicted himself, saying and unsaying, as Socinus his Master often did.  

To all which punctually in few words.  
1. It would deservedly have been expected, that M. Walker having charged M. Wotton, with 
t Epist. to M. Wotton, Relat. p 4. & Vindic. p. 10.  maintaining, teaching, and infecting divers, with the most pestilent and dangerous errors and opinions of all that ever the devil sowed among Christian people, the heresies of Servetus and Socinus, those most damnable and cursed heretics, the greatest monsters that ever were born within the borders of Christ's Church; I say, that having thus charged M. Wotton, he should have proved him to consent with them in those monstrous and most pestilent errors of all, that ever were by them held and taught: otherwise his evidence falleth far short of his Charge. And surely one of these two M. Walker by virtue of that his charge stands bound to maintain and make good; either that those prodigious ●●tages and detestable blasphemies of Servetus related by Calvin, (to let pas Socinus and his denial of Christ's deity) yea not those of him alone, but the like of 
u Of all which Epiphanius and Augustine, with others may be seen.  the Ophites, the Cainites, the Nicolaitans, the Basilidians, the Valentinians, the Carpocratians, the Marcionites, the Manichees, and the whole rabble of abominable old heretics, whose positions and practices were so hideous and horrible, or so unclean and obscene, that they are not almost to be related; yet are not so vile and pestilent as are those errors, that either M. Wotton indeed held, or were by M. Walker (truly, or falsely, shall be all one) objected unto him; or else, that, though these are not so vile and pestilent as those; that those were none of them by the devil sown among Christian people, but these were. Otherwise, if he will be but judged by his own words, he must acknowledge himself a most notorious sycophant; that chargeth so deeply, and so poorly and slenderly makes his charge good. And this, unless he will eat his own words, how he can avoid, I see not.  
2. It is most falls, that I use any such plea, that therefore, what M. Wotton held, concurring (as M Walker pretended) therein with them, was no heresy; because they were condemned for other heresies. For which assertion, I here charge M. Walker with a manifest and palpable untruth: which together with divers others herein avowed by him, until he disclaim and acknowledge, I shall not desire to have further dealing with one that regards no more what he saith.  
Among other things indeed, which he glides by, I question 
x Relat. Poscr. p. 55.  his candour, in charging M. Wotton to concur with Servetus in all points concerning the doctrine of justification; when he produceth 
y Paral. Error. 4. n. 3. Relat. p. 15.  but one short saying of Servetus concerning Abraham's Faith: wherein yet M. Wotton, neither in express terms, and in sense and meaning much les, (as I have above showed) concurreth with him. and withal 
z Relat. Posc. p. 56.  I show by an instance M. Walkers iniquity and unequal dealing therein; such as himself would by no means admit, or endure in his own case. That which M. Walker being altogether unable to wipe of, he slily slips away, and 
a Tuus est iste syllogismus, non m●us. Fingis enim me diccre, quod non dico: concludere, quod non concludo. Aug ad. julian. l. 3. c. 7.  instead thereof shifts in a supposititious absurdity, a brat of his own brain; to delude his reader, and to make him believe, that M. Gataker so argues as himself too oft doth.  
3. Whereas he saith, he knows this (I know not what, of M. Woitons') to be heresy and blasphemy: what need I say more, but (as he sometime) that herein I believe him not; no more than M. Richardson, if (as 
Alteri●s adversus ipsum convicia rescrenti, Tudicas, me illi non credere.  
c Pag. 26.  before he told us) he affirmed on his knowledge, that whosoever lived and died in it should be damned. What he knows, I know not. but what he was able to make proof of, when time was, I know; and men of as good credit every inch (what if I said, of as great knowledge to in matter of divinity?) as M. Walker, do give testimony thereunto.  
4. What he jangles, so much, and so 
d Pag. 3, 4, 32.  oft, of other Autors, I leave him to try it out with 
e The Socinian john. Socinianism discovered, p. 8.  him, whom he affirms 
f Ibid. Epist. p. 9 Answ. to Pref. p. 8. & Vindic. p. 25.  to have renewed M. Wotton's opinions, and to have filched all out of his writings. Only making bold to tell M. Walker, that, when he hath read over a few of Pareus his works, one of the Autors he so oft mentions, and by name that 
* Epistola ad D. Lodovicum Witgensteinium. Oper. Tom. 2. & in Opuscul. Catechet. V●sini Explic. Cat●ch. subjunctis.  of his concerning Christ's Active and Passive obedience, out of which I have presented him with one or two small snips; I am half of the mind, that he will pass the like censure on him also for an heretic, that he hath done upon M. Wotton. And it may not without good ground, of probability at least, be conjectured, that therefore he waived meddling with the latter part of my Postscript; because I therein 
g Relat. Poser, p. 55, 60.  evidently show, that a man may hold not a few points held by Socinus, and yet not be therefore a Socinian heretic. And I would but request of M. Walker, to tell his mind plainly, what he thinks of those, who stiffly hold and maintain; that justification consists wholly in Remission of sins; that Christ's Righteousness in fulfilling the moral Law is not imputed unto us for justification; and that God without breach of his justice might have pardoned man's sin, requiring no satisfaction at all for the same; whether they be Socinian heretics, as well as M. Wotton, or no. to which demand if he shall return an affirmative answer, he may be pleased to take notice by 
h Pag. 58, 60.  my Postscript, if at least he list so to do, what a large list of new heretics, never before taken among us for such, must upon his doom now be taken in and ranged in that rank.  
5. For his peering so narrowly into M. Wotton's conscience, as 
i Pag. 38.  before, so here; I shall leave him to render an account unto him, who 
k 1 Sam. 16. 7: Jerem. 17. 10. Apoc. 2. 23.  challengeth unto himself that Prerogative, to see into men's souls; and whose 
l 1 Kings 8. 39 Acts 1. 24. & 15. 9 Rom. 1. 12, 13. 1 Cor. 4. 5.  power therefore M. Walker therein usurps.  
6. For M. Wotton's pretended contradictions, enough already hath been answered. though neither is it my part to make them all good; nor doth it either make him an heretic, albeit they be not all made good; or prove him conscious to himself, of what M. Walker would thence infer. Howbeit if M. Wotton's fear of shame, as M. Walker here says, induced him unto them; then had M. Wotton that, which I fear M. Walker too much wants; since that otherwise he would have been afraid to expose himself so to shame, as by his carriage in this very Pamphlet, besides what elsewhere he hath done. As for Socinus M. Wotton's master, as he p●… here to call him: it is no new thing with 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 to enlarge Socinus his school, and to assigns him scholars, whom he lists, more than a few, who yet abhor Socinus, it may be, as much as M Walker himself doth.  
For his close, wherein he tells me, thinking thereby to stop my mouth, that 
m Pag. 35.  if I will break forth into a further defence of M Wotton, he will be as ready to resist me; taxes M. Wotton, 
n Ibid.  for professing himself in some things concerning the point of justification, to descent from them all, whom he speaks of; wherein he compares, him to Peter Abeilard, who in some things professed to descent from all the Divines that went before him; and lastly professes, in some general and ambiguous terms, 
o Pag. 36.  what his faith is. For all this a short answer (as himself 
p Pag. 34.  elsewhere) will serve.  
1. I never undertook, nor do undertake, any Defence of M. Wotton, as holding no error: whom in my former Relation 
q Relat. p. 7.  I professed in somethings to descent from, that which himself also well knew; and mine Animadversions upon his Book De Reconciliatione in some marginal notes (wherewith, after my wont manner, in reading of Autors, for mine own private use, I have (to use M. Walkers 
r Pag. 27.  words) be daubed my margin, and so marred my book) will easily and evidently show the same. All that I have said, and do still say, is this; having witnesses beyond exception to bear me out therein; that M. Walker was not able to convince M. Wotton of heresy and blasphemy, much les (as he had charged him) of the most pestilent here sies that ever were sown by the devil, or had sprung up in God's Church, in that meeting, which he himself had procured for that purpose. And this, let M. Walker shuffle and shift what he can, 
* Ut●●e suum 〈◊〉 is, quos call●…us 〈◊〉 auc. ps, Crus ubi co●… 〈◊〉 volucris, sensitque t●…ri, Plangitur, tc tr●pi●la●s assring it vincula motu, Externata fagam frustra dum tentai. N●… fabul. l. ●1.  like a Foul in a snare, or Fish in a net, or a wild Bull in a toil; the more he stirs, and strives and struggles, the more he may mash and entangle himself, but he will never be able to expedite or wind himself out of. For as for his Goliath like menacing to resist me; I shall so 
s Cui ajax 〈◊〉 Nasonem fab. l. 13. Opposui molem clypei, texi 〈◊〉 Et mox. Post clyp●umque late, & mecum contende sub illo. quod & de Teucro Arist●les in Pana●hen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ex Homero, qui. Il. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et mox. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Ulysses▪ like shelter myself under their shield, whose attestation I have delivered, that he must first bear them and their credit down before him, (which I assure myself he will never do) ere he shall be able either to lay me on my back, or to maintain his own ground, and keep himself standing in this encounter.  
2. For M. Wotton's professing to descent from them all; wherein he yokes him with Abeilard. who those all are, I wot not, for I have none of that writing, out of which M. Walker relates this. nor do I find that of Abeilard, that Bernard in this kind charges him with, in any writing of his now extant. that work of his, wherein he had it, (if at least he had it in any, for some books are by 
t Haec Capitula partim in libro Theologiae magistri Petri partim in libro sententiarum ejusdem reperta sunt. Bern. ep. 190.  Bernard cited as his, 
u Nun● quam liberaliquis, qui senteniiarum dicatur, à me scriptus reperitur. Petr. Abeil in Apolog.  which he professes he never wrote) may be lost. Howsoever, I suppose it no such heinous matter, in something to depart from all Writers known to us, that have gone before us. Sure I am that junius and Tremellius, in translating and expounding some passages of Scripture, departed from all known Interpreters that had gone before them: as in that 
x Mala. 2. 16.  place of Malachy; for which those of the weaker sex are beholden to them; that in all, even the best, translations ever before ran; If thou hate her, put her away. though 
y Ita enim Abraham Esdr●… silius in hunc vatis locum.  some indeed of the Jewish Rabbins directed to that, which those famous and worthy men, never sufficiently commended, admitted, against all that had before them taken pains in that kind. and they might well therefore have said, as Bernard says that Peter Abeilard did; All Interpreters before us thus translated this place: but we cannot therein concur with them. yet is not their interpretation, that I know, therefore deemed the les sound Yea I suppose, that if all M. Walkers own, either Sermons or Assertions were sifted, the like, Omnes alii sic; Ego verò non sic; would be more than once found in them. He that to prove, the Swedes to be the people designed by God's word for the destruction of the Romish Babylon, should affirm that that prophecy, wherein people are willed to 
a Jerem. 50. 26.  come from the utmost border, or end (understanding it, of the world; which yet is not necessary) to destroy Babel; was never fulfilled in the destruction of the Chaldean Babylon; should therein, I suppose, cross all Interpreters of holy Writ that are commonly in hands. Which whither M. Walker, as some report, have affirmed or no, is best known to himself. But sure I am, as I have formerly touched, concerning the ground of man's fall, I have heard him profess himself to descent from all our Divines; laying withal a very foul aspersion upon all that therein dissented from him. Howsoever since that in these latter times, it hath been by God's Spirit foretold, that 
b Da●. 12. 4.  knowledge should increase; yea reason itself, besides daily experience telleth us the selfsame: for, notwithstanding the diligentest searches of all foregoing ages. 
c Ve●itas (〈◊〉 nondum est occupata: multuus ex illa futuris relictum est. Sencc ep. 33.  truth much of it remains still undiscovered, and 
d Crescit indies. & inventuris inventa non obstant. Idem. ep. 79  it is an easier matter to add to former discoveries, then to discover things at first: they may see most, that come last: and we find it in all other learning and knowledge, that those things have in these latter days been brought to light, which in former ages, for aught that can be descried, were utrerly unknown; I suppose, under correction, that it ought 
e Vltimi conditio est optima. Ibid.  not to be deemed any just cause of aspersion, if a man shall, with modesty, rendering at least some reason 
f Videatur Guido Pancirola de Novis repertis.  of good probability for his so doing, profess himself compelled in some things to depart from all those, that to his knowledge have dealt in some argument before him: especially if he shall withal (as the same Peter in the very entrance to his Introduction unto Divinity doth) profess himself 
g Paratus semper ad satisfactionem de malè dictis vel corrigendis vel delendis, cum quis me fidelium vel virtute rationis, vel autoritate Scripturae correxerit.  ready to give satisfaction in aught said amiss by him to any man; who either by force of reason, or by authority of Scripture, shall thereof convince him; either by altering, or by expugning it. That so, saith he, though I be not free 
h Vt si nondum ignorantiae vitio caream, haeresis tamen crimen non incurram.  from the evil of ignor●ne; yet I may not incur the crime of heresy. 
i Non enim ignor antia haereticum facit, sed magis superbiae obstinatio.  For it is not a man's ignorance, but his proud obstinacy, that makes him an heretic. Nor, may I well add, were the bare profession of dissent in some particulars from all other Orthodox Divines presumed in either, sufficient to make, either M. Wotton, or Peter Abeilard an heretic.  
Lastly, as concerning M. Walkers profession of 
k Pag. 35, 36.  his Faith, that 
l Pag. 26.  he purposes to live and die in, though I know not what authority M. Walker hath to compose a Creed for every one to subscribe to: nor do I deem it necessary unto salvation, that every one should in all things be of his belief. Yet this his form, (like 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●●tharunus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. calceamentum pedi utrique aptum. tam virisi quam & muliebri sexui usurpatum. Svid.  a Yragik buskin, that may be drawn on either leg) is in such general and ambiguous terms conceived; (lest he should exclude from it some of those Writers, whom he cracks so much of, as concurring with him in condemning M. Wotton's opinions for heretical and blasphemous) that M. Wotton himself, I verily believe, were he alive, would not refuse to subscribe to it. And M. Walker well knows, that, were he put to explain it, and to declare more distinctly, what he means by Christ's righteousness, and the fulfilling of the 
n Sib. Lubber●us: de quo sup. p. 13.  whole Law for him, one at least of those worthies, whom he hath so oft in his mouth, (to say nothing of another of them, whom yet so highly he extols) would not only refuse to subscribe to, but condemn some part of his Faith 
o Hanc distractionem justitiae nostrae coram Deo, quod ea vec sacris literis esset consentanea ●adcò odit, ut saepenumerò commotior diceret, mera haec esse inanium subtilitatum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quae puritatem doctrinae Orthodoxae imm●ne quant●… msiccrent. Phil. Par●us in vità Dav Parei patris sui.  as a vain refuse and subtlety, not agreeable to Scripture; but such as taints the purity of Orthodox doctrine, rends in pieces that righteousness, whereby we stand just before God, 
p Morti Chris●i d●rogat. Dau. Pareus de ●ct. & Pass. ●hr. 〈◊〉. Pr p. 5.  derogates from the death of Christ, and 
q .  makes his Cros and his satisfaction by death for our sins, wholly needles and superfluous. Which speeches of his (and Pareus his they are) if, to M. Walkers ear they sound not as hereticol and blasphemous, I wonder how aught should in M. Wotton's writings. And so I shall take my leave of him; leaving him to reconcile himself to Pareus, since that M. Wotton is now departed, who yet herein jumpeth not wholly with him; and wishing him a little more sobriety and modesty toward his Christian brethren, that have not so ill deserved, either of him, or of God's Church, as to be thus scandalously taxed, traduced, railed upon, and reviled, as by him they are, both here and elsewhere.  
FINIS.