The Occa­sion.NOt to hold my reader therefore long in the entry ere I come to the Relation: M ^r Walker in a letter directed to M ^r Wotton (whom he had before bitterly inveighed against both in private and publick) dated May the second, 1614. yet to be seen under his own hand, chargeth him (for you shall have it pre­cisely in his own words) on this wise, ‘ Mr Wal­kers chargeThe Errours and Opinions which you main­tain, and wherewith you have infected divers, are of all that ever were sown by the enemy of God and man amongst Christian people the most pestilent and dangerous, being nothing else but the he­resies of Servetus and Socinus those most damnable and cursed hereticks, the great­est monsters that ever were born within the borders of Christ his Church.’

And after this charge in such hideous terms conceived, in the same letter he subjoyneth this peremptory challenge, ‘ [Page 5] His Chal­lenge.Meet me as a Christian before eight learned and godly Ministers chosen equally by both, that they may be witnesses betwixt you and me, and that it may be seen whe­ther I do justly charge you with heresie and blasphemy or no, and whether your writings do not shew you to be a Socinian.’

Upon receit of this letter containing much other lavish and menacing lan­guage, M ^r Wotton repaired to the Right Reverend, the then Bishop of London, D ^r King their Diocesan, acquainted him with the businesse, and requested his Lordship to convent M ^r Walker and himself, and to heare them both toge­ther; not refusing, if M ^r Walker could make his charge good against him, to un­dergo such censure and penalty as he should be deemed thereby to have justly deserved; otherwise requiring due sa­tisfaction by his Lordships means from him who had wronged him in such man­ner. But the Bishop perswaded M ^r Wot­ton rather, according to M ^r Walkers own Proposition, to referre the matter [Page 6] to such a number of their brethren the Ministers as were by him mentioned, and so to make a private end of the busi­nesse. Whereunto M ^r Wotton returned this answer, That howsoever he desired rather that his Lordship would be plea­sed to have the hearing of it himself, yet since that he seemed to like better of the other course by M ^r Walker propound­ed, he was well content to condescend thereunto, so be that his Lordship would be pleased to assigne one of his Chap­lains then present to be one of the foure to be nominated by him, though a stran­ger to him; for that he cared not who they were, acquaintance or strangers, so they be godly and learned, that should heare and judge his cause. And the Bi­shop accordingly promised that it should so be, assigning M ^r Henry Mason, a grave and reverend Divine, being then and there present, to undertake that office with such others as were to be adjoyned unto him in the same: who yet surviving in the City is able to testifie of this pas­sage with the Bishop, whether it were [Page 7] according to this relation or no. For I have this onely from M ^r Wotton's own report (though nothing doubtfull of the truth of it) who meeting me accidental­ly in Pauls Church as he came from the Bishop, having not seen him long before, shewed me M r Walker's letter, told me what speech he had had thereupon with the Bishop, and what by the Bishops per­swasion he had yielded unto; withall requesting me to be one of those that were on his part to be named for the discussing and deciding of this difference. Which motion of his albeit I desired to wave, wishing him rather to make choise of some other, both nearer at hand, and of better abilities, the City affoording such not a few; yet at his instant request, the rather pressing it upon me, because he had, as he said, so happily light upon me unexpected, and notwithstanding that he knew before my judgement in some particulars to differ from his, ha­ving both by word of mouth, and in writing also sometime at his own re­quest manifested to him as much, yet [Page 8] making no reckoning thereof, I was at length induced to condescend thereun­to.

The persons nominated by M ^r Wal­ker were M ^r Stocke, M ^r Downame, M ^r Gouge, and M ^r Westfield; whereof three is yet living, M ^r Stock onely is de­ceased. Those that were nominated by M ^r Wotton (because M ^r Mason by oc­casion of an extraordinary employment by his Majestie suddenly enjoyned, of surveying a book of D ^r John Whites ready to be published, could not attend the businesse, another therefore being substituted in his stead) were these, M ^r Balmford, M ^r Randall, M ^r Hicks, Chap­lain to the Earl of Excester, and my self; who alone (I suppose) of all the foure now survive, and am the rather induced to affoord this Christian office to so wor­thy [...], Mortuum etiam haud sustineo a­micum pro­dere, Eurip. apud Dion. Prus. orat. 37 a deceased friend.

It was thought not so fit to meet in a private house (which at first we had done, but found therein some inconveni­ence) as in some Church that stood out of the way of ordinary concourse. By [Page 9] occasion hereof D ^r Baylie, afterward Bi­shop of Banghor, came in as one of us, and made up a ninth, because we desired to make use of his Church. There ac­cordingly we met, and some time being spent, or, if you will, wasted, rather in loose invectives then in orderly disputes, I made bold to propound a course to the rest of the company (because time was precious, and my self came farthest) for the better expediting of the businesse un­dertaken by us; which was also general­ly approved of by the rest, and by both parties agreed unto.

The Proposition was this, That M ^r Walker should in a Parallel consisting of two columns set down Socinus his here­ticall and blasphemous errours and po­sitions on the one side, and M ^r Wottons assertions, wherein he charged him to concurre with Socinus, over against them on the other side: upon view whereof it might the sooner appear how the one suited with the other.

M ^r Walker undertook so to do; and M ^r Wotton required onely to have M ^r [Page 10] Walker's said writing delivered unto him some two or three dayes before the set time of our next meeting, that he might against that day prepare a brief answer thereunto, in writing then to be exhibi­ted. The motion was on either side deemed equall; nor did M ^r Walker him­self mislike it.

Now by this means, God in his pro­vidence so disposing it (which at the pre­sent in likelihood was little dreamed of) M ^r Wotton, as Heb. 11.4. Abel, though deceased, is inabled to speak in his own defence, and to plead now his own cause as well as then he did.

M ^r Walkers Parallel, and therein his Evidence produced for the proof of his charge above mentioned, you shall have in his own words as it was then given in; those pieces of it onely that were con­ceived in Latine being faithfully transla­ted word for word, as near as could be, into English, because in English M ^r Walker's book with the renewed Charge is abroad.

THat it may plainly appear that So­cinus, Servetus, Ostorodius, Gitti­chius, Arminius and M ^r Wotton do in the doctrine of Justification hold one and the same opinion in all points, I shew by the parts and heads of their doctrine set down in order, and by their own say­ings and testimonies paralleled and set one by another.

Charge. A. W. in the doctrine of Justification holdeth one and the same opinion in all points with Socinus: and therefore is just­ly charged by G. W. to be guilty of heresie and blasphemy.

That he doth hold the same in all points, is shewed by these seven Errours following:

Errour 1.The first Errour of Socinus and his followers is, That Justification is contain­ed onely in Remission of Sinnes, without Im­putation of Christs Righteousnesse.

Answer.1. If you mean without Imputation of Christs Righteousnesse as the merito­rious cause of Justification, I grant the Proposition to be hereticall and blas­phemous. And so doth Socinus deny Imputation.

I. Christ (saith he) did not satisfie for our sinnes: Treatise of Christ the Saviour, Part 1. chap. 1. pag. 1. part 2. chap. 17. pag. 245. col. 1. part 3. pag. 306. beginning, and chap. 1. pag. 307. col. 1.

II. He could not satisfie, Part 2. chap. 24. [Page 22] pag. 288. col. 2. part. 3. in argum. chap. 6: pag. 406.

III. He did not pacifie God, Part 2. chap. 2. pag. 120. col. 1. Part 1. chap. 7. pag. 76. col. 2.

IV. There was no need of any satisfaction to be made, Part 1. chap. 1. pag. 1.

V. God would not that any satisfaction should be made, Part 3. chap. 2. pag. 317. col. 2. and pag. 324. col. 1.

But I do not so deny Imputation of Christs Righteousnesse: for I acknow­ledge it to be the meritorious cause of our Justification, and that for it we are accepted of God as fully as if we had fulfilled the Law perfectly, Treatise of the Justification of a Sinner, in explication of the definition of Reconciliation, and in the definition of Adoption, and in the Conclu­sion.

2. If you mean without Imputation of Christs Righteousnesse, as the formall cause whereby we are made formally righteous, by having fulfilled the Law, and satisfied the Justice of God in Christ, I say the Proposition is neither hereti­call [Page 23] nor blasphemous.

And that I must be so understood, my writings shew.

For, first, I professe that I speak of the formall cause of Justification, Treat. of Justific. of a Sinner, in the State of the Question, in Answer to Argum. for Positi­on 1. and to Arg. 1. for Position 3. and in the Conclusion.

Secondly, I expresse that manner of formally righteous, Treat. of Justific. of a Sinner: where I expound what it is to impute to a Sinner Christs Obedience; and of Justification, where I deliver mine own opinion, Sect. 2. which is the very place that M ^r Walker alledgeth against me out of the English.

Therefore I agree not with Socinus in this first Errour, but am unjustly char­ged to be guilty of heresie and blasphe­my for holding one and the same opini­on with him in all points in the doctrine of Justification.

Errour 2.The second Errour is, That Faith is a condition appointed by God to be performed on our parts for obtaining Justification.

[Page 24] Answer.1. Socinus defineth believing on Christ to be nothing else then to yield ones self obedient to God, according to the rule and prescript of Christ, and by so doing to expect from Christ himself the crown of life eternall, Treat. of Christ the Saviour, Part 3. chap. 2. pag. 321. col. 1.

2. He maketh Faith to be indeed (as M ^r Walker saith) a confidence in Christ, but he addeth immediately (which M ^r Walker leaveth it) that is, an obedience to Christs precepts, with a firm hope of obtaining those things which he hath promised to those that obey him, Part 4. chap. 11. pag. 559. col. 1. and in the same page he laboureth to prove, That Faith doth signifie obedience to Christs Com­mandments, Sect. Hinc factum est.

3. He maketh Repentance and A­mendment of life the means to obtain that forgivenesse of sinnes which Christ hath brought, Part 3. chap. 2. pag. 321. col. 1.

4. And whereas Faith is added to Repentance, Act. 20.21. It is not (saith [Page 25] he) because Faith in Christ is required unto the obtaining of remission of sinnes, as working somewhat more in us besides repentance it self, that doth hereunto appertain; but because this Repentance cometh not but by Faith in Christ. In the same columne, Sect. Manifestum.

5. He saith, that whereas John sent the people to Christ, and warned them to believe in him; it was not as if they should find any other thing besides Re­pentance in Christ that was requisite unto the obtaining of pardon from God, but, first, that they might be exactly taught of Christ what that Repentance ought to be. Besides, that from Christ they might understand that that was wholly so indeed, which he delivered onely as a messenger. Lastly, that they might not be washed with water onely, but have the holy Ghost poured upon them, Part 3. pag. 320. col. 1. But I ne­ver writ, spake, nor conceived so of Faith to the obtaining of Justification. Nay, it is evident that I make Faith not a believing of that which Christ taught, [Page 26] and an assurance of obtaining that he promised upon our Repentance and O­bedience (which is Socinus his confi­dence, Part 4. chap. 11 pag. 559. col. 1.) but a resting and relying upon Christ, a trusting to Christ for salvation, Serm. 6. upon John, pag. 286. and Serm. 8. pag. 386, 389, 398. yea a means, and, if you will, an instrument to apprehend and receive Christ to our Justification, Treat. of Ju­stific. in explicat. of the Definition of Recon­cil. So that, for ought I hold of Faith, Christs Righteousnesse may be even the formall cause of our Justification.

Therefore I agree not with Socinus in this second Errour, but am unjustly charged to be guilty of heresie and blas­phemy for holding one and the same o­pinion with him in all points in the do­ctrine of Justification.

Errour 3.The third Errour is, That Faith doth not justifie us, as it apprehendeth and appli­eth Christ and his Righteousnesse; but by it self, in a proper not metonymicall sense.

Answer.This third Errour hath two Proposi­tions, which shall be answered to seve­rally.

[Page 27]The former is, That Faith doth not ju­stifie as it apprehendeth and applieth Christ and his Righteousnesse.

I hold this Proposition to be false; acknowledging and confessing that Faith doth not justifie us but onely as it appre­hendeth and applieth Christ and his Righteousnesse; the very condition of the Gospel being, That by Faith we ap­prehend and apply Christ and his righ­teousnesse to be justified thereby, Treat. of Justifie. in explic. of the definit. of Re­concil.

The other Proposition is, That Faith doth justifie us by it self in a proper not me­tonymicall sense.

I never said or thought that Faith doth justifie us by it self. This onely I say, that in this Proposition, Faith is counted for Righteousnesse, the word Faith is to be taken properly, not tropically; the question being in such Propositions not of the meritorious or formall cause of our Justification, but of the condition required on our part instead of keeping the Law.

[Page 28]Therefore I agree not with Socinus in this third Errour, but am unjustly charged to be guilty of heresie and blas­phemy for holding one and the same o­pinion with him in all points in the do­ctrine of Justification.

Errour 4.The fourth Errour is, That for Faith properly taken, and dignified and made wor­thy, not of it self but in Gods acceptation and of his mercy a man is justified, and may lay claim to remission of sinnes.

Answer.Neither Socinus nor Servetus (in the words you bring out of them) affirm that a man is justified and may lay claim to remission of sinnes, for Faith any way dignified, &c. Nay, Socinus a­voucheth, that Repentance and Amend­ment of life is that by which that for­givenesse of sinnes which is brought by Christ is obtained, Part 3. chap. 2. pag. 322. col. 1. How then am I proved to agree with him in that Errour which he is not proved to hold? Especially, seeing that I never said that we are justified for Faith, and do renounce all dignity and worth in Faith, and give the whole me­rit [Page 29] of our Justification to our Saviour Christ and his obedience.

That which is alledged out of my pa­pers is no more but this, That the con­dition of the Gospel being Faith, as the condition of the Law is Keeping of the Law; he that believeth in Christ hath done as much, that is, performed the condition of the Gospel, as well as he that keepeth the Law hath fulfilled the condition of the Law: so that on his part God requireth no more to his Justi­fication.

And that this is certainly my mean­ing, the words going before in that En­glish paper, and those also that follow in the other English paper, and in the La­tine, do manifestly shew.

Therefore I agree not with Socinus in this fourth Errour, but am unjustly char­ged to be guilty of heresie and blasphe­mie for holding one and the same opini­on with him in all points in the doctrine of Justification.

Errour 5.The fifth Errour is, That Faith is no firm perswasion by which we apprehend and [Page 30] lay hold upon Christ and his Righteousnesse, and apply them to our selves as of right be­longing to us by our spirituall union; but that it is a trust and confidence in Christ for salvation, joyned with obedience to Christs precepts: or (to speak plainly) a confidence that Christ, having obtained by his obedience the kingdome and all power, will certainly give us salvation if we rely on him and obey his counsels.

Answer.Whether the three Propositions set down in this Errour, be rightly gathered from the words alleaged by M ^r Walker out of Socinus or no, I leave to other mens judgement. But whatsoever Soci­nus held, I have nothing to do with any of these Propositions. Onely of the first I say, That the perswasion, whereof I speak in the place he bringeth, is that particular assurance that every man (as some define Faith) must have to Justifi­cation; viz. that his sinnes are forgiven in Christ: Whereas Faith (being the condition required on our part) must go before Justification, at least in nature. But this perswasion followeth it, and is [Page 31] bred in us by the Spirit of God after we believe and are justified. For it is given to us, being already adopted Sons, Gal. 4.5. and Adoption is a Prerogative vouchsa­fed us upon our believing, John 1.12.

Therefore I agree not with Socinus in this fifth Errour, but am unjustly char­ged to be guilty of heresie and blasphe­my for holding one and the same opini­on with him in all points in the doctrine of Justification.

Errour 6.The sixth Errour is, That Christs whole obedience and Righteousnesse serve first and immediately for himself to bring him into favour and authority with God; and secondly, onely for us: Not that it might be communicated to us in him, to make us truly and formally righteous; but onely that it might serve for our use, in that it maketh him gracious with God, and so both able to obtain, that Faith might be accepted for Righteousnesse and we for it; and also powerfull to give those blessings which are promised to those that trust in him.

Answer.The words you alledge out of Soci­nus [Page 32] prove no more (at the most) but the first point of this Errour, That Christs whole Obedience and Righteousnesse serve first and immediately for himself, to bring him into favour and authority with God.

There is nothing in this sixth Errour that toucheth me.

All that I say, in the former place al­ledged by M ^r Walker, is no more but this; That whatsoever maketh Christ beloved of God is some cause of Gods love to us who are beloved in and for him, Ephes. 1.3, 4, 6. Now among other things for which Christ is beloved, his holinesse and obedience have no mean place. Whereupon it followeth that they may be reckoned in the number of those causes that make us beloved of God in and for his Sonne our Saviour Je­sus Christ, Treat. of Justific. of a Sinner, in explic. of the Definit. of Reconcil.

In the latter I say, That we are not ac­counted to be Formally Righteous, by having fulfilled the Law and satisfied the Justice of God in Christ. And yet I ac­knowledge that we are (for his obedi­ence) [Page 33] accepted of God as righteous no lesse then if we had indeed performed those things. And this was determined in the first Errour to be neither heresie nor blasphemy.

Therefore I agree not with Socinus in this sixth Errour, but am unjustly char­ged to be guilty of heresie and blasphe­my, for holding one and the same opini­on with him in all points in the doctrine of Justification.

Errour 7.The seventh Errour is, That Christ did not satisfie the Justice of God for us in such sort that we may be said (when we truly be­lieve) to have satisfied the Justice of God and his wrath in him: And that God (of his Mercy) without Christs satisfaction made ours, doth pardon our sinnes, and justi­fie and redeem us.

Answer.Socinus denieth all satisfaction by Christ, not onely with limitation (as you propound it in this seventh Errour) but absolutely, as appeared in mine an­swer to the first Errour: and according­ly he maintaineth that we are pardoned, justified, and redeemed without any sa­tisfaction [Page 34] made by a true price paid to God the Father by our Saviour Christ for us.

But I acknowledge and professe that Christ hath made satisfaction for us, by paying a true price to God his Father for us: and that God doth not pardon us but for and in respect of that payment made for us.

In the places alledged out of my wri­tings I say no more, but that we cannot be held to have satisfied the wrath of God in Christ, and withall to be truly and properly pardoned. If we have been punished, how are we pardoned? If we be pardoned, we have not been punished. Christ hath been punished for us; we are pardoned for his punishment, Esa. 53.5.

Therefore I agree not with Socinus in this seventh Errour, and (having cleared my self of agreeing with him in any of the seven) am unjustly charged by M ^r Walker to be guilty of heresie and blas­phemy for holding one and the same o­pinion with Socinus in all points in the doctrine of Justification.

THus have you both M ^r Walker's charge and evidence, and M ^r Wot­ton's Answer in his own Defence there­unto. You exspect now (I suppose) in the next place to heare what the Issue of it was. Upon the delivery in there­fore and view of both compared toge­ther, there was by word of mouth fur­ther debating of the severall points at large, as well between M ^r Walker and M ^r Wotton, as by the parties nomina­ted on either side among themselves. Who albeit they agreed not with M ^r Wotton in all particulars; and in some things then debated were not all of one mind, as in that question occasi­oned by M ^r Wotton's answer to one branch of the last Article, to wit, Whe­ther in the work of redemption the faithfull be considered as one with Christ, or no: or in plainer terms, Whether our insiti­on into Christ in the order of Nature be deemed to precede the work of our redem­ption, or the work of our redemption in [Page 36] the order of nature to go before it: con­cerning which, being somewhat a nice subtiltie, they were divided; some holding the one part, and some the o­ther: yet so farre were they from con­demning M ^r Wotton as guilty of he­resie and blasphemie in the points above mentioned, as that they professed divers of them, and that some of M ^r Walker's own choice, no one denying or oppo­sing the rest therein, to have oft taught some of them, namely the second, to wit, That faith is a condition appointed by God to be performed on our part for obtain­ing justification: which yet M ^r Walker affirmed to be a most dangerous errour.

In conclusion, it was without further question or contradiction of any of the whole eight then present, as well the no­minated by the one as those assigned by the other, with unanimous consent ge­nerally resolved and pronounced, that there appeared not to them either here­sie or blasphemy in ought that M ^r Wot­ton was by M ^r Walker convinced to have delivered or maintained.

[Page 37]Which M ^r Wotton requiring further to be testified under their hands, albeit M ^r Walker, perceiving it to be deemed equall and meet, began to storm and flie out, and demanded of them, whe­ther they would take upon them to de­termine heresie; whereunto such answer was returned as was fit: yet it was ac­cordingly (as of right it ought) yielded unto. The writing by all the eight then present subscribed, being committed to the custodie of D ^r Bayly, upon promise by him made to deliver it to M ^r Wot­ton, when it should by two of the par­ties, one of either side nominated, be demanded of him in his behalf.

Now howsoever the Doctour after­ward upon some pretences refused to de­liver it as he had promised to do, whe­ther pressed by M ^r Walker to detain it or no, I wot not, himself best knoweth: yet for the truth of this issue, as it hath here been related in the behalf of M ^r Wot­ton, it will plainly appear by the attesta­tion of two of those of M ^r Walkers par­ty yet surviving (for a third is deceased, [Page 38] and the fourth was absent at the meet­ing that concluded all) in the very terms ensuing, written with one of their hands, and subscribed by them both.

[Page 39]Thus have you faithfully related, up­on ground of proof undeniable, the car­riage of the businesse between M ^r Wal­ker, and M ^r Wotton, and the issue of the same. You have M ^r Walker's charge and challenge, together with the evi­dence produced and given in by him to make his charge good: you have M ^r Wotton's defence in way of answer thereunto: and you have the verdict and sentence of select parties appealed to by joynt consent, delivered upon di­ligent view and due hearing both of the one and the other; who all say in effect, that M ^r Wotton did sufficiently clear himself from those foul imputations of heresie and blasphemie, that M ^r Wal­ker then charged him with; and that M ^r Walker failed in making good that his charge then, which with so much vehemency and virulency he reneweth now against him, yoking him 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 [Page 40] they were condemned as blasphemous hereticks.

The iniquitie whereof, though it may sufficiently appear by what hath alrea­dy been related; yet that the Reader may the better judge how equally these persons are here yoked together, it will not be amisse (though the matter be but unsavoury) to acquaint him with some generall and principall heads of those points, that Abeilardus, Servetus, and Socinus stand charged with.

Peter Abeilard, or Balard (for Fr. Am­boesius in Praefat. A­pol. pro Petr. Ab. of his name they agree not) whom Beatus Rhenan. ad Tertull. cal­ce Admo­nit. ad Lect. some affirm to have been one of the first Fa­thers of the School-men, and first found­ers of School-divinitie (for Joannes Cornub. apud Quercetan. in Notis ad Abeilard. Peter Lombard, say they, took from him) is by Bernard Bern. ep. 192. charged, to have savoured of Arius in the doctrine of the Trinitie; of Pelagius, in the doctrine of Grace; of Nestorius concerning the person of Christ: to have held Idem ep. 190. Christ to be no true Redeemer of us, nor to have recon­ciled us to God by his death: but to have been an exemplary Saviour; that is, [Page 41] such an one as by his life and death, pie­tie and charitie, obedience and patience, chalketh us out the way to heaven: and to have broached in his books Idem Ep. 188. a num­ber of sacrilegious errours concerning the soul of Christ; his descent into hell; the power of binding and loosing; Idem Ep. 193. the sacraments of the Church, and by name that of the Altar; of originall sinne; of concupiscence; of sinnes of delight, infirmitie, and ignorance; of sinne in work and sinne in will. But he telleth us not what they were.

Now whether Bernard charge him truly herein or no (which for divers causes may be justly questioned; and the rather for that Abeilard in Abeilar­dus in Apo­logia operi­bus praefixa: & Epistola­rum l. 2. ep. 20. Et in Apolog. al­tera apud Berengarium ejusdem di­scipulum ep. 17. contra Bern. p. 308. his Apo­logie flatly denieth, that he ever wrote taught or once thought the most of those points that Bernard fasteneth up­on him, and for that Legantur Bernardi Epist. 195, 196, 240. & in Cant. serm. 55, & 56. sed & Illy­ric. Catalog. Test. Verit. lib. 15. p. 1531. Bernard's reports concerning others of those times, some whereof were his scholars, are not un­justly suspected) it is not much materi­all [Page 42] to our purpose; the rather for that the charge granted to be true, the more pestilent and blasphemous his errours are found to be, the greater inequali­tie will appear in the collation, unlesse the parties collated can be proved to have maintained opinions as pestilent and as blasphemous as his.

But for Servetus and Socinus, the other two, what they held, we have records of sufficient credit.

For Servetus, (from whom M ^r Wal­ker borroweth onely one small snip, wherewith to piece up his Parallel) whether his works be extant or no, I wot not; and the better it is, if they be not. But what he taught and maintain­ed, we have taken out of his writings, from M ^r Calvine's relation, together with an ample refutation of them ad­joyned thereunto.

His chief assertions, among a vast heap of other absurd, prodigious and blasphemous ones, are these: That Calv. in relat. & re­fut. error. Servet. Ar­tic. 1. p. 607. col. 2. there is no such Trinitie of persons in the Deitie, as is commonly maintained; [Page 43] where he brandeth the orthodox tenet and the abettours of it with most hide­ous terms raked up from Hel it self, and too vile to be related, and fasteneth ma­ny uncouth and fantasticall conceits full of impietie and blasphemie upon the names given in Scripture to the second and third Persons. That Ibid. 657. col. 2. God in the be­ginning of the world produced the Word and the Spirit: and began then as a person to appear in three uncreated elements and communicated of his essence unto all that he then made. That Ibid. This Word being the face and image of God, is said then to have been begotten, because God then began to breed it, but stayed for a woman to bear it, untill the Virgin Mary was; that Ibid. p. 658. c. 1. then Christ was conceived in her womb, of the seed of the Word and the substance of the Spirit: so that the Word was then first turned into flesh, and then that flesh by the Spirit whol­ly turned into the essence of the Deitie; Ibid. p. 657. c. 1. and that Christ hath now a spirituall body, that filleth heaven and earth. That Ibid. p. 658. c. 1. The Spi­rit is a kind of gentle breath, which at first proceeded from the Word, consisting partly [Page 44] of the essence of God, and partly of a created power: which Ibid. p. 656. c. 2. having moved in the Crea­tion on the face of the waters, and there find­ing no rest, retired again to heaven, and there stayed, till at the Baptisme of Christ it came down again. That Ibid. P. 609. c. 1. art. 29. & pag. 658. c. 1. Man is said to be made after Gods image, because the very essence of God is in every man from his ori­ginall, and that not in the soul onely but in the body; and that though the devil have by a kind of carnall copulation got into, and possessed himself of the body, yet that the di­vine essence remaineth still in the soul: which notwithstanding it is by sinne become mortall, and is breathed out into the aire, yet in the regenerate by means of the Spirit it becometh consubstantiall and coeternall with God. That Ibid. p. 657. c. 1. Christ should have come to ca­rie men to heaven, albeit Adam had never fallen; and that the Tree of knowledge of good and evil was a figure of Christ, whom Adam over-hastily desiring to tast of threw himself and his posteritie into perdition. That Pag. 609. c. 2. art. 37. & p. 547. c. 1. None are guilty of mortall sinne, till they be twenty yeare old; because they have no knowledge of good or evil till then; [Page 45] Pag. 650. c. 2. nor are therefore till then to be catechised: Pag. 649. c. 2. nor any to be baptized, till they be thirty years old; because of that age the first Adam was created, and at that age the second A­dam was baptized. That Pag. 658. c. 1. Before Christs coming the Angels onely, not God, were worshipped: Pag. 657. c. 2. nor were any regenerate by the Spirit: Pag. 658. c. 1. nor did their faith regard any more then terrestriall good things; save that some few by apropheticall spirit might aloof off have some smatch of spirituall things. That Pag. 658. c. 2. From the beginning, as well Gentiles as Jews, that lived well accord­ing to natures guidance, were thereby justi­fied; and without faith of Christ shall there­by at the last day attain to life eternall. That Pag. 652. c. 2. The Law was given onely for a time; and Pag. 655. c. 1. that men were then saved by the observation of it; which was then obser­ved, when men did what they could, who might therefore glorie then in their works, being justified wholly by them: but Pag. 652. c. 2. that men are not now to be scared with it. That Pag. 658. c. 2. Faith is nothing else but to believe Christ to be the Sonne of God: and Pag. 656. c. 1. to justifie, no­thing, but to make a man righteous, who [Page 46] was sinfull before: and that Pag. 658. c. 2. we are now justified, partly by faith, and partly by works. That Pag. 653. c. 1. On Gods part there is no promise required unto justification: nor doth faith depend upon any promise of God, or hath any respect thereunto: in regard whereof Pag. 654. c. 2. he scoffeth at those that build their faith upon Gods promises, or that mention them in their prayers. That Pag. 651. c. 2. & 654. c. 1. There is a perfect puritie in every holy action; and such as may endure even the ex­treme rigour of Gods justice. That Pag. 655. c. 2. Abra­ham was indeed justified by works: howbe­it, that his believing is first said to be im­puted to him for righteousnesse, and he said to be just for one act of faith; (the place by M ^r Walker produced) as if a prince out of his favour regarding his souldiers mind and good will, would be pleased to accept the good endeavour for the thing fully perform­ed: and so Abraham was therefore by God deemed just, because by his believing it ap­peared that he stood well affected to acquire a commendation of righteousnesse by his good works. Which is all, saith Calvine, that he ascribeth unto faith, either in us, or [Page 47] in him. Pag. 655. c. 2. & p. 658. c. 1. Whose faith, also he saith, as of others before Christ was no true faith but a figure of true faith, and the righteousnesse imputed to him no spirituall but a carnall righteousnesse, and insufficient; not a truth, but a shadow; and the imputation of it but a type of the great grace of Christ to us.

And thus much, if not too much, of Servetus his blasphemous and prodigi­ous dreams and dotages: for I have ra­ked overlong in this filthy sinck, in this stincking puddle, which till upon this occasion I never pried or peered into be­fore, nor, it may be, should ever have done but for it.

Socinus remaineth, whose positions what they were, may appear by his wri­tings yet extant, and in the hands of too many; by means whereof it is to be feared that they do the more hurt. The principall of his tenets, though not so prodigious as those of Servetus, yet blasphemous and vile enough, are these: He denieth not Socin. in Evang. Jo­an. c. 1. v. 1. p. 4, 5. Christs deity and eter­nity onely, with Epiphan. haer. 69. & Aug. haer. 49. Arrius; but Socin. in Joan. 1.1. p. 7. & ad Cu­teni object. art. 8. his exi­stence at all also before he was conceived [Page 48] by the Virgin Mary, with Epiphan. haer. 71. & Aug. haer. 44 Photinus; and so maketh him Socin. in Joan. 1.14. p. 35, 36. a mere man. He de­nieth Christ to have been Socin. de Christo Ser­vatore l. 2. c. 1. & 2. per totum. a redeemer, or to have wrought any redemption, or to have paid any price or ransome unto God for us, truly and properly so term­ed; or that Ibid. l. 1. c. 1. p. 145 & l. 3. c. 2. p. 317, & 321. by his sufferings any satis­faction at all was made unto God for our sinnes; or that Ibid. l. 1. c. 7. p. 76. & l. 2. c. 2. p. 120. & de Offic. Christ art. 38, 39. God is thereby re­conciled unto us; or that De Christ. Servat. l. 3. c. 5. & de Ju­stificat. synop. 1 p 4. thereby he merited ought from God either for him­self or for us. That De Christ. Serv. l. 1. c. 1. initio. he is therefore one­ly called a Saviour, and is said to save, partly De Christ. Serv. l. 1. c. 2. de Offic. Christ. art. 5. ad object Cuteni, art. 9. because he teacheth us by his doctrine, and Ad Cuteni object. art. 14. sheweth us by his pra­ctice the way to life eternall, and De Christ. Serv. l. 1. c. 3. de Offic. Christ. art. 35. con­firmeth the same to us by the miracles that he wrought, and De Offic. Christ. art. 36, 37. & de Christ. Serv. l. 1. c. 5. by his dying and rising again from the dead; and partly, De Christ. Serv. l. 1. c. 6. & de Of­fic. Christ art. 45. because he hath power given him by God to make the same good unto all that believe in him: That De Christ. Serv. l. 4. c. 11. de Offic. Christ. art. 42. ad Cuteni object. art. 17. to believe in him is nothing else but to obey him, or to keep his precepts under hope of eter­nall [Page 49] life thereby to be obtained; and that this is the very De fide & oper. ad q. [...] p. 58. & ad q. 3. p. 60. [...] in Notis a [...] Dial. N.N n. 16. form and essence of ju­stifying faith; and that De Christ. Serv. l. 4. c. [...] p. 462. c. 2. & p. 463. c. for so doing a man is justified and accepted to life eter­nall; and that De fide & oper. ad q. p. 62. it is therefore in our power by our good works to attain thereunto. This is the summe of his doctrine concerning mans justification and salvation; wherein also I am the briefer, because much of it hath been laid down before.

Now whether M ^r Wotton or M ^r Godwin do conspire and concurre with Peter Abeilard, Servetus and Socinus in these their blasphemous dotages, and are therefore justly yoked with them by M ^r Walker or no (it concerneth not me) let others try and determine. But for M ^r Wotton his own defence of himself herein, and the censure of others by M ^r Walker himself appealed to, A sente [...] tia ex co [...] promisso aditi appelari non posse, saep [...] rescriptu [...] est. Anto [...] Imp. Cod. l. tit. 55. leg. A sententi [...] arbitri pa [...] tium volu [...] tate electi non appel­latur, Jo. Al. dicaeolog [...] l. 3. c. 55. n. 15. Ab ele­ctis judici­bus appell [...] re non pu­tamus lic [...] re, B [...]rn. ap 180. which he cannot therefore in equity go from, I have faithfully delivered; being con­firmed by the attestation of those whom he cannot except against, being men of his own choise, and of sufficient credit [Page 50] and good esteem otherwise. And as for M ^r Godwin, to me a mere stranger in regard of any acquaintance, one whom I never heard or saw to my knowledge, save once of late occasionally at the fu­nerall of a friend, nor know certainly what he holdeth or hath taught, I say no more, but as they sometime of their sonne, John 9. Aetatem habet, he is old enough, and (for ought I know) able enough to answer for himself: and he surviveth yet so to do if he see good.

But whether Peter Abeilard ever moved this Question which M ^r Walker saith he was the first mover of, to wit, Whether faith, or the righteousnesse of Christ be imputed in the act of justification, is to me a great question. And M ^r Walker's reading herein (as, I confesse, it may well be) is better then mine, if he can shew where either he did ever handle it, or is reported so to have done. Nor do I find in all M ^r Calvines large relation and re­futation of Servetus his blasphemies, where ever he propounded or maintain­ed any question in such terms, as this by [Page 51] M ^r Walker is here conceived in. For So­cinus, it is true, that in prosecution of his discourses, wherein he laboureth to prove Christ to be such a Saviour onely as was out of him before described, he is inforced to acknowledge, that Faith, such as he meaneth, that is, Obedience to Christs commandments doth justifie, with­out relation to ought done or suffered by Christ, any satisfaction made by him, or me­rit of his; neither of which he acknow­ledgeth: And the like may be deduced from what Servetus held, (though his assertions, as Calvine also well obser­veth, are found oft to enterfere, and to crosse one another) and from that also that Abeilard is by Bernard charged to have held.

But if M ^r Walker will father this upon him concerning the deniall of the Impu­tation of Christs righteousnesse, because from his positions it may be deduced, he might have risen a great deal higher, and have fetched in Simon Magus, Ebion, Cerinthus, Marcion, Manes, and a whole rabble of old hereticks (and out of the [Page 52] ancient stories of the Church made a list as large almost as his book is long) from whose pestilent positions the same might as well be deduced, as from those things that Abeilardus and Servetus maintain­ed.

Again, neither is this sufficient to prove a point to be hereticall and blas­phemous, because it may be deduced from assertions of that nature: for if we shall condemn as hereticall and blasphe­mous, whatsoever by necessary conse­quence may be extracted from those do­tages that some blasphemous hereticks have held, the like censure may then, yea must then be passed upon many ortho­dox tenets, in the negative especially, maintained by us against the Church of Rome, since that they follow necessarily from those grounds that by such here­ticks have been held. For example: That Christs body is not really present in the Sa­crament, nor is sacrificed and offered up to God in the Masse, doth necessarily follow from the opinion of Aug. haer. [...]2. Eutyches and o­thers, who maintained the humane na­ture [Page 53] of Christ to be swallowed up into his Godhead; from the dotages of Aug. haer. Si­mon, Epiphan. haer. 23. Saturn, Idem haer. 24. & Aug haer. 4. Basilides, and many more, who held that he never suffered at all; of Epiph. haer 44. & Aug. haer. 23. Apelles, who held that his body was dissolved into the foure ele­ments; of Aug. haer. 59. Seleucus, Aug. ibid. Manes, Epiph. haer. 66. and Hermes, that held it fastened to the starres, or lodged in the sunne: That there is no purgatory, nor use of invocation of Saints, or of singing masses for souls decea­sed, followeth necessarily from the opi­nion of Act. 23.8. the Sadduces that held no spi­rits, and from the Calv. ad [...] Psychopann [...] Psychopannychites dream of the souls sleeping till the last day; which in effect therefore, the se­questration of them at least from the di­vine presence till then, that Chamaelion Spalatensis In concio [...]ne coram Jacobo Ro­ge. pretended the rather to maintain, because by it those Popish er­rours would be easily and evidently o­verthrown. For who is so meanly versed in the art of reasoning as not to know, That [...], Arist. Topi [...] l. 8. c. 4. Ex falsis fa [...] sum, verúm que ali­quando se­quetur. Ex veris pote­rit nil nisi vera sequi the clearest truths may be dedu­ced from the grossest falshoods that may be. As, grant a stone to have life, and a [Page 54] man to be a stone, and it will thence fol­low, that a man hath life. And yet were it absurd from hence to conclude, that whosoever holdeth the latter must needs either concurre in judgement with those that should maintain the former; or hold any falshood, much lesse any absurdity, though those positions that inferre it be both false and absurd.

And let M ^r Walker consider this calm­ly and seriously with himself: He hath put down this in his Parallel for an here­ticall and blasphemous assertion, That Faith [in Christ] (for so he must needs mean) is a condition appointed by God to be performed on our parts for the obtaining of Justification. Now should any man here­upon enter an action against M ^r Walker, accusing him as guilty of Judaisme, Pa­ganisme and Mahumetanisme, would he not, think we, make grievous complaint, yea with open mouth cry out and ex­claim of extreme injury done him? Yet is it as clear as the light at noon-day, that whosoever shall deny Faith in Christ to be a condition appointed by God to be [Page 55] performed on mans part for the obtain­ing of Justification, shall have all Jews, Paganes, and Mahumetanes concurring therein with him, as in a point naturally flowing and necessarily following from what they hold.

To go yet a step further; Suppose a man do concurre with such hereticks as have been spoken of in some point, be it a truth or an errour that is held and maintained by them, will it thence fol­low that he consenteth to them and a­greeth with them in all things, or in such blasphemous opinions as they otherwise hold? And here M ^r Walker's candour may well a little be questioned. To prove M ^r Wotton to hold one and the same opinion with Servetus in all points concerning the doctrine of Justification, he produceth onely this one saying of Servetus, For one act of Faith was Abra­ham righteous. Whether he have proved M ^r Wotton to have said the same or no, is not now materiall, and I leave it to be judged by what himself hath spoken for his own defence in way of answer there­unto. [Page 56] But should a man, putting in a crosse interrogatorie, demand of M ^r Walker Whether he hold that Christ hath ful­filled the Law for us or no? I doubt not but he would answer in the affirmative, That he hath. And the very same thing in the very same words is found by Cal­vin related out of Servetus, Carnali populo li­cuit in suis factis glo­riari, nobis autem non licet nisi in cruce D. N. J. C. The carnall people, saith he, might glory in their deeds, but we may not but in the crosse of our Lord Jesus Christ: Solùm li­cet nobis Christi fa­cta narrare, qui omnia opera pro nobis ope­ratus est, & legem im­plendo pro nobis, cùm non posse­mus id prae­stare, Ser­vet. l. 2. de Leg. & E­vang. apud Calv. p. 655. col. 1. We may onely relate the facts of Christ, who hath wrought all our works for us, by fulfilling the law for us when we could not do it our selves. Yet I suppose M ^r Walker would take it in very ill part, and well he might, if any should thence conclude, That M ^r Walker therefore doth in all points hold one and the same opinion with Servetus concerning the doctrine of Justification.

Again for Socinus; he maintaineth, that Est ver­bum hoe justificationis juridicum, in quo jure nemo justus efficitur, sed pronunciatur, Socin. de justif. fragm. sect. 1. p. 45. To justifie is a term of judicature; that, In hac di­sputatione non significat justum facere, Idem ibid. it signifieth not to make a man inherently righteous, or to infuse righteousnesse into [Page 57] him; but Justificari nihil aliud est, quàm pro justis haberi, De justif. synops. 1. p. 6. Justi­ficat, i. ju­stos pro­nunciat, De justif. thes. 4. p. 9. Certis­simum est justificatio­nem in sa­cris literis aliud nihil significare quàm ju­stum pro­nunciare, & pro justo habere, Idem in no­tis ad Dial. N. N. n. 18. & n. 55. to deem him, repute him, pro­nounce him righteous; that Autore Dialogi saepius notat, quia justificationem cum vitae sanctimonia sive justitia & sanctitate, quâ quis praeditus est, confundit, Num. 1. n. 18. & n. 31. & n. 46. & n. 55. & n. 59. they do amisse that confound justification and sanctificati­on, the one with the other; that Credere Jesum revera esse Christum Dei Filium, &c. non est revera ea fides, quae nos Deo ad vitam aeternam gratos efficit, De fide & oper. quaest. 1. p. 55. Neutrum horum, Credere Jesum esse Messiam, Et verbis ejus fi­dem adhibere, est fides illa quâ revera justificamur, Ibid. q. 2. p. 57.58. Fides, quâ credimus Dei promissa esse vera, non est revera ea fides quâ justificamur, In notis ad Dial. n. 16. That faith whereby we are justified is not a bare belief or assent unto the truth of Gods word; that Fides, sive obedientia quam Christo praestamus, nec efficiens nec meritoria causa est justificationis atque aeternae salutis, nec eam per se meretur. De justif. Thes. 5. & ad Cuteni object. art. 8. & de fide & oper. q. 4. p. 62. Credere vera esse quae Deus vel Christus dixit, non est fides quâ justifi­camur. De Christ. Serv. 1.4. c. 11. p. 554. c. 1. & p. 558. c. 2. Neither faith, Ex merito ipsorum operum nequaquam justificamur, De justif. Thes. 5. Non sunt meritoria, & suā vi hominem justificantia, De justif. fragm, sect. 7. p. 50. nor works, believing in Christ, or obeying him, are the meritorious causes of justification; or Nulla esse opera, quae tanti sint, ut propter ipsorum meritum justificari possimus, De justif. fragm. sect. 7. p. 48. do or can, in re­gard of any worthin them, merit ought at Gods hands: Fides in Christum non propriâ vi justificat, De Christo Servas. l. 4. c. 11. p. 560. c. 1. nor doth faith it self justifie by any force of its own. And all these points do our writers generally maintain against the Papists; yet never, that I know, was any Papist so shamelesse (and yet shame­lesse enough are they) as to condemn [Page 58] them therefore for Socinian hereticks, or to charge them to agree with Socinus and his followers in all points concern­ing the doctrine of justification.

Again it is by Socinus held and main­tained, that Forma­lis justifica­tio nostra coram Deo fuit & sem­per erit re­missio pec­catorum nostrorum, Socin. de fide & oper. q. 1. p. 56. Justi­ficatio no­stra nihil aliud reipsâ est, quàm peccatorum deletio, I­bid. q. 3. p. 60. justification consists in re­mission of sinnes, which for my part I deem erroneous, and suppose that else­where I have evidently shewed it so to be; howbeit Justitiam Paulo nihil esse, quàm remissionē peccatorum Calvin. in Rom. 4.6. Calvine, Posira est omnis justi­ficatio in in remissione peccatorum, Beza de Coena Dom. p. 175. Beza, Justificatio consistit in gratuita remissione peocatorum, Olev. in Rom. 4.6. Olevi­an, Idem sunt justificatio & remissio peccatorum, Ursin. explic. catech. q. 60. sect. 3. Ursine, Idem sunt, remissionem peccatorum consequi, & justificari, Zanch. miscel. l. 2. de re­miss. pecc. thes. 10. p. 329. Zanchie, Justitia imputata nihil est aliud quàm remissio peccatorum, Piscat. Thes. vol. 1. loc. 15. thes. 14. Piscator, Consistit in remissione, tectio­ne, non-imputatione peccatorum: haec est ejus forma privativa & positiva, Pareus in Rom. 46. observ. 2. Deus proprié justificat, cúm absolvit gratìs, re­mittens peccata propter meritum Christi, Ibid. ad v. 5. obs. 3. Justificationis cau­sa formalis est remissio peccatorum, Idem cont. Bellarm. de justif. l. 2. c. 1. p. 365. Pa­reus, Justificatio nihil est aliud quàm remissio peccatorum parta per sanguinem Christi, Muscul. in Joan. 3.18. Musculus, Quid aliud est justificatio quàm peccatorum remissio? Bullinger. in Rom. 4.8. Bullinger, Justificatio constat propriè peccatorum re­missione, Fox de Christ. gratìs justif. l. 3. p. 383. Fox, and divers others of great note and name, yea Credimus totam nostram justi­tiam positam esse in peccatorum nostrorum remissione, Confess. Gallicanâ, art. 18. Credimus peccatorum nostrorum remissione unicâ totam nostram justi­tiam coram Deo contineri, Confess. Belgicâ, art. 23. whole Synods of ours are found so to say; and yet were these men never yet, that I ever heard or read, for so say­ing [Page 59] condemned as hereticks, much lesse as blasphemous hereticks, but had in high esteem, as their worth, parts and works well deserved, by those that therein dissented from them.

I will adde but one instance more, Socinus in the very entrance into his Treatise of Christ the Saviour affirmeth, that Potest Deus de suo jure, quantum velit, dimit­tere, Socin. de Christo Serv. l. 1. c. 1. p. 4. c. 2. Sic­ut potuisset homines, li­cèt peccan­tes, morti aeternae non mancipare, sic ex illius imperio ex­imere, & quidem ju­re, suâ so­lâ volunta­te potest, Ibid. pag. 5. c. 1. God might if he had pleased, without breach of his justice, have pardoned mans sinne freely, without any satisfaction requi­red: and the same he Potuit Deus pec­cata nobis jure ignoscere, nullâ à quoquam pro ipsis verâ satisfactione acceptâ, Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 1. pag. 306. cap. 1. & pag. 309. cap. 1. after again pres­seth and prosecuteth in his ensuing dis­courses. Whether this be an errour or no, I stand not now to discusse. In scripto Poster. ad Tossanum. Vorstius herein concurred with Socinus; and In rescript. ad Vorstium. is for the same reproved by Tossanus; Grotius likewise for De satisfactione Christi adv. Socin. c. 3. affirming the same is In judicio de Grotii libr. G. 2. p. 2. & G. 3. taxed by Ravenspergerus; In Respons. ad judic. Ravensp. cap. 28. defended by Vossius, who citeth Divines not a few, both old and new, saying the same: And it is maintained, to passe by all [Page 60] others, by Poterat nos Deus verbo aut nutu redi­mere, nisi aliter no­strâ causâ visum est, Calv. in Jo­an. 15.13. Calvine, Si sic ju­stus est De­us, ut sine detrimento justitiae suae misericors esse nequeat; si sic, inquam, justitiae suae obstrictus est, ut non liceat ipsi, quorum vult misereri & à peccatis absolvere teos, quod tamen permultos sibi principes & magistratus liberè permittere vi­demus, consequitur, non tantum illi potestatis esse in ipsius creaturas, quantum est homini in suos subditos, quâ re quid potest magìs impium cogitari? Muscul. in Loc. commun. de justif. c. 3. Musculus, Deus servare nos poterat solo suo imperio, peccata simpliciter ex sua misericordia condonando, Zanch. de Incarnat. Christ. l. 2. c. 3. quest. 1. Zan­chie, Though it be not lawfull for a man to justifie the wicked, yet God may do it, that is above all law: and the reason is, because God hath right and power to forgive sinnes, because they are committed chiefly against him. Grineus and Faius, Willet on Rom. 4.5. quest. 14. n. 2. Grineus, Faius, Concedimus justi­tiam punientem peccata, & misericordiam ea condonantem, utramque esse li­berrimae Dei voluntatis effectum, Casman. Anti-Socin. part. 2. c. 1. Casman, Restituere five recreare hominem non minùs liberum Deo fuit, quàm creare: peccatum. solo imperio tanquam nubem tollere poterat, Tilen. disput. de Incarn. fil. Dei. Ti­lenus, Potuisset omnino Deus primos parentes & omnes homines ex mortis im­perio eximere & in gratiam recipere, solâ voluntate citra Mediatoris satisfa­ctionem ullam, nisi priùs & antè protulisset decretum suum comminatorium, Franz. disp. de Sacrif. 14. thes. 63. Franzius, Utrumque Deus potuit, & abs (que) ulla satis­factione, & cum satisfactione peccata nobis remittere: de facto tamen eligit hoc posterius, Smigles. de satisfact. Christ. adv. Smalcium cap. 11. Smiglesius, and our reverend D ^r Sine dubio potuit Deus, si sic ei visum fuisset, Adae peccatum, aut ipsi condonare, aut in ipso tantùm ulcisci, posterísque omnibus gratiam salutarem, eo neutiquam ob­stante, liberè gratificari, Twiss. in Vindiciis Gratiae, Potest. ac Provid. Dei. de Praedest. lib. 1. part. 1. sect. 4. digress. 4. cap. 3. pag. 39. col. 2. Twisse; yet I am perswaded that no wise or discreet man at least will hence conclude any of these to be there­fore Socinian Hereticks.

And M ^r Walker might do well to be better advised before he charge his Christian brethren and fellow-labour­ers in the work of Gods Ministerie, with [Page 61] these odious imputations of heresie and blasphemie, (then which what can be more hainous, more hideous, being taints of the deepest die?) upon such weak and unjustifiable grounds as these are.

To conclude, if any shall demand of me why I have undertaken this office (which from some, I know, I shall have small thanks for) and why I thrust my finger needlessely into the fire? the an­swer is ready from what already hath been said; I am the onely surviver for ought I know (for Whether M ^r Hicks be still living or no, I am not certain) of those that were on M ^r Wotton's part entrusted and employed in this businesse, and I could not therefore do lesse for so worthy a servant of God, and mine an­cient acquaintance; whom I alwayes re­verenced while he lived as a man deser­ving singular respect for his pietie and learning, and zeal for Gods cause, which An an­swer to a Po­pish Pam­phlet, or Ar­ticles tend­ing to prove the Prote­stants Reli­gion to con­sist of pal­pable absur­dities and notorious errours. A triall of the Romish Clergies Title to the church against A. D. A defence of Mr Per­kins his Reformed Catholick, against W B. Runne from Rome, of the necessitie of de­parture from the Church of Rome. Sermons on part of the first Chapter of S. Johns Gospel. De Reconciliatione peccatoris libri 4. his works left behind him do suffici­ently [Page 62] manifest, and will testifie to ensu­ing posteritie, and both do and shall still honour deservedly the memorie of him now deceased; and at rest, I doubt not, with the Lord, enjoying the reward of his religious pains taken in his Masters work; then to testifie what I then heard and saw, was a party in, and subscribed to with others; and to second the pious intents of his sonne, who treadeth care­fully in his fathers commendable steps, desirous to publish what in his fathers papers he found for the vindicating of his postumous name and reputation, as dear unto him as his own, with this Pre­face and Postscript adjoyned there­unto.

I say no more, but wish onely Verita­tem cum Charitate, that Truth may with Charitie be pursued on all parts. So grant, good Lord, for thy Christs sake, now and ever. Amen.