Defense Against Walkers Charge of Socinian Heresy

The Preface.

I T hath ever been and is generally held a breach, not of Charity alone, but even of Piety too, to insult over and trample upon persons deceased: which if in any sort of men doth well deserve such a censure, surely among Christian men especially it may justly be so deemed for any in that manner to deal with their Christian brethren, such as have lived and died in the profession of the same common Faith in Christ, and in the fellowship of the same Church of God with themselves. Not that it is presumed an act unwarrantable or uncharitable to refute any error that such have broached while they lived, or to remove any scruple that thereby may remain in the minds of those that yet survive: For a fond thing were it, not to offer to pull out the shaft sticking yet in the body, or not to seek to close up the wound by it made in the flesh, because the party were gone and had withdrawn himself who had shot the one, and thereby caused the other. Free it is at all times to defend necessary truths, whether the Authors and Patrons of them survive yet or be deceased: but to insult and triumph over any, when they are now dead and departed from us, as if we had convinced and conquered them while they were yet alive with us, when as indeed we have done nothing less; yea, to renew aspersions and imputations of the most heinous and horrible guilt that can be against them long after their decease, when we suppose the memory of things so long before past and gone may be worn out with the most, and buried with the greater number of those that were privy to what was then done, recharging them in most vehement & virulent manner with those crimes which the parties then cleared themselves of, nor were we then able to make any good proof of against them, may deservedly be censured (if I be not much mistaken) to argue no small defect, not of piety and charity alone, but even of humanity, (not to add, of common honesty itself) in those that so do.

Now this whether M ^r George Walker have made himself guilty of or no, in his Treatise lately published under the Title of Socinianism in the Fundamental point of Justification discovered and confuted, concerning M ^r Anthony Wotton, a man, by M ^r Walkers own confession, of special note for his piety, life and learning, while he lived, which both the University of Cambridge, and the City of London are able also to give ample testimony unto; I say nothing myself, but leave it to be tried and judged by the sequel, wherein I shall be only a relatour of that that myself was for the most part either an eye or an ear-witness of, leaving M ^r Wotton to plead his own cause, and M ^r Walker's own days-men by their award under their own hands either to cast or to clear him.

The Relation.

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 public) 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,

And after this charge in such hideous terms conceived, in the same letter he subjoineth this peremptory challenge,

Upon receipt 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 business, and requested his Lordship to convent M ^r Walker and himself, and to hear 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 persuaded M ^r Wotton rather, according to M ^r Walkers own Proposition, to refer the matter to such a number of their brethren the Ministers as were by him mentioned, and so to make a private end of the business. 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 assign one of his Chaplains then present to be one of the four 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 hear 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 adjoined unto him in the same: who yet surviving in the City is able to testify of this passage with the Bishop, whether it were according to this relation or no. For I have this only from M ^r Wotton's own report (though nothing doubtful of the truth of it) who meeting me accidentally in Paul's Church as he came from the Bishop, having not seen him long before, shown me M _r Walker's letter, told me what speech he had had thereupon with the Bishop, and what by the Bishops persuasion he had yielded unto; withal 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 choice of some other, both nearer at hand, and of better abilities, the City affording 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 judgment 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 making no reckoning thereof, I was at length induced to condescend thereunto.

The persons nominated by M ^r Walker were M ^r Stock, M ^r Downame, M ^r Gouge, and M ^r Westfield; whereof three is yet living, M ^r Stock only is deceased. Those that were nominated by M ^r Wotton (because M ^r Mason by occasion of an extraordinary employment by his Majesty suddenly enjoined, of surveying a book of D ^r John Whites ready to be published, could not attend the business, 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 myself; who alone (I suppose) of all the four now survive, and am the rather induced to afford this Christian office to so worthy 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 occasion hereof D ^r Baillie, 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 myself came farthest) for the better expediting of the business 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 heretical and blasphemous errors and positions on the one side, and M ^r Wotton's assertions, wherein he charged him to concur 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 only to have M ^r Walker's said writing delivered unto him some two or three days 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 equal; 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 Abel, though deceased, is enabled to speak in his own defense, 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 only that were conceived in Latin 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.

M ^r WALKER 's evidence.

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 show 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.

M ^r . Wotton's Defense.

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 heresy and blasphemy.

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

The first Error of Socinus and his followers is, That Justification is contained only in Remission of Sins, without Imputation of Christ's Righteousness.

1. If you mean without Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as the meritorious cause of Justification, I grant the Proposition to be heretical and blasphemous. And so doth Socinus deny Imputation.

I. Christ (saith he) did not satisfy for our sins: Treatise of Christ the Savior, 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 satisfy, Part 2. chap. 24. pag. 288. col. 2. part. 3. in argum. chap. 6: pag. 406.

III. He did not pacify 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 Christ's Righteousness: 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 Christ's Righteousness, as the formal 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 heretical nor blasphemous.

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

For, first, I profess that I speak of the formal 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 express that manner of formally righteous, Treat. of Justific. of a Sinner: where I expound what it is to impute to a Sinner Christ's 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 Error, but am unjustly charged to be guilty of heresy and blasphemy for holding one and the same opinion with him in all points in the doctrine of Justification.

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

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 eternal, Treat. of Christ the Savior, 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 Christ's 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 laboreth to prove, That Faith doth signify obedience to Christ's Commandments, Sect. Hinc factum est.

3. He maketh Repentance and Amendment of life the means to obtain that forgiveness of sins 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 he) because Faith in Christ is required unto the obtaining of remission of sins, as working somewhat more in us besides repentance itself, 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 only as a messenger. Lastly, that they might not be washed with water only, 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, 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, Christ's Righteousness may be even the formal cause of our Justification.

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

The third Error is, That Faith doth not justify us, as it apprehendeth and applieth Christ and his Righteousness; but by itself, in a proper not metonymicall sense.

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

The former is, That Faith doth not justify as it apprehendeth and applieth Christ and his Righteousness.

I hold this Proposition to be false; acknowledging and confessing that Faith doth not justify us but only as it apprehendeth and applieth Christ and his Righteousness; the very condition of the Gospel being, That by Faith we apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousness to be justified thereby, Treat. of Justify. in explic. of the definite. of Reconcil.

The other Proposition is, That Faith doth justify us by itself in a proper not metonymicall sense.

I never said or thought that Faith doth justify us by itself. 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 our Justification, but of the condition required on our part instead of keeping the Law.

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

The fourth Error is, That for Faith properly taken, and dignified and made worthy, not of itself but in God's acceptation and of his mercy a man is justified, and may lay claim to remission of sins.

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 sins, for Faith any way dignified, &c. Nay, Socinus avoucheth, that Repentance and Amendment of life is that by which that forgiveness of sins 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 Error 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 of our Justification to our Savior Christ and his obedience.

That which is alleged 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 Latin, do manifestly show.

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

The fifth Error is, That Faith is no firm persuasion by which we apprehend and lay hold upon Christ and his Righteousness, and apply them to ourselves as of right belonging to us by our spiritual union; but that it is a trust and confidence in Christ for salvation, joined with obedience to Christ's precepts: or (to speak plainly) a confidence that Christ, having obtained by his obedience the kingdom and all power, will certainly give us salvation if we rely on him and obey his counsels.

Whether the three Propositions set down in this Error, be rightly gathered from the words alleged by M ^r Walker out of Socinus or no, I leave to other men's judgment. But whatsoever Socinus held, I have nothing to do with any of these Propositions. Only of the first I say, That the persuasion, 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 sins are forgiven in Christ: Whereas Faith (being the condition required on our part) must go before Justification, at least in nature. But this persuasion followeth it, and is 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 Error, but am unjustly charged to be guilty of heresy and blasphemy for holding one and the same opinion with him in all points in the doctrine of Justification.

The sixth Error is, That Christ's whole obedience and Righteousness serve first and immediately for himself to bring him into favor and authority with God; and secondly, only for us: Not that it might be communicated to us in him, to make us truly and formally righteous; but only 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 Righteousness and we for it; and also powerful to give those blessings which are promised to those that trust in him.

The words you allege out of Socinus prove no more (at the most) but the first point of this Error, That Christ's whole Obedience and Righteousness serve first and immediately for himself, to bring him into favor and authority with God.

There is nothing in this sixth Error that toucheth me.

All that I say, in the former place alleged by M ^r Walker, is no more but this; That whatsoever maketh Christ beloved of God is some cause of God's 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 holiness 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 Son our Savior 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) accepted of God as righteous no less then if we had indeed performed those things. And this was determined in the first Error to be neither heresy nor blasphemy.

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

The seventh Error is, That Christ did not satisfy 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 Christ's satisfaction made ours, doth pardon our sins, and justify and redeem us.

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

But I acknowledge and profess 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 alleged out of my writings I say no more, but that we cannot be held to have satisfied the wrath of God in Christ, and withal 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 Error, and (having cleared myself of agreeing with him in any of the seven) am unjustly charged by M ^r Walker to be guilty of heresy and blasphemy for holding one and the same opinion with Socinus in all points in the doctrine of Justification.

The Issue.

THus have you both M ^r Walker's charge and evidence, and M ^r Wotton's Answer in his own Defense thereunto. You expect now (I suppose) in the next place to hear 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 several 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 faithful 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 the order of nature to go before it: concerning which, being somewhat a nice subtlety, they were divided; some holding the one part, and some the other: yet so far were they from condemning M ^r Wotton as guilty of heresy and blasphemy 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 error.

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 heresy or blasphemy in ought that M ^r Wotton was by M ^r Walker convinced to have delivered or maintained.

Which M ^r Wotton requiring further to be testified under their hands, albeit M ^r Walker, perceiving it to be deemed equal and meet, began to storm and fly out, and demanded of them, whether they would take upon them to determine heresy; 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 custody 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 Doctor 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, 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.

Thus have you faithfully related, upon ground of proof undeniable, the carriage of the business 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 defense in way of answer thereunto: and you have the verdict and sentence of select parties appealed to by joint 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 heresy and blasphemy, 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 they were condemned as blasphemous heretics.

The iniquity 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 amiss (though the matter be but unsavory) to acquaint him with some general and principal heads of those points, that Abeilardus, Servetus, and Socinus stand charged with.

Peter Abeilard, or Balard (for of his name they agree not) whom some affirm to have been one of the first Fathers of the School-men, and first founders of School-divinity (for Peter Lombard, say they, took from him) is by Bernard charged, to have savoured of Arius in the doctrine of the Trinity; of Pelagius, in the doctrine of Grace; of Nestorius concerning the person of Christ: to have held Christ to be no true Redeemer of us, nor to have reconciled us to God by his death: but to have been an exemplary Savior; that is, such an one as by his life and death, piety and charity, obedience and patience, chalketh us out the way to heaven: and to have broached in his books a number of sacrilegious errors concerning the soul of Christ; his descent into hell; the power of binding and loosing; the sacraments of the Church, and by name that of the Altar; of original sin; of concupiscence; of sins of delight, infirmity, and ignorance; of sin in work and sin 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 his Apology flatly denieth, that he ever wrote taught or once thought the most of those points that Bernard fasteneth upon him, and for that Bernard's reports concerning others of those times, some whereof were his scholars, are not unjustly suspected) it is not much material to our purpose; the rather for that the charge granted to be true, the more pestilent and blasphemous his errors are found to be, the greater inequality will appear in the collation, unless 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 only 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 Calvin's relation, together with an ample refutation of them adjoined thereunto.

His chief assertions, among a vast heap of other absurd, prodigious and blasphemous ones, are these: That there is no such Trinity of persons in the Deity, as is commonly maintained; where he brandeth the orthodox tenet and the abettors of it with most hideous terms raked up from Hel itself, and too vile to be related, and fasteneth many uncouth and fantastical conceits full of impiety and blasphemy upon the names given in Scripture to the second and third Persons. That 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 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, until the Virgin Mary was; that 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 Deity; and that Christ hath now a spiritual body, that filleth heaven and earth. That The Spirit is a kind of gentle breath, which at first proceeded from the Word, consisting partly of the essence of God, and partly of a created power: which 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 Baptism of Christ it came down again. That Man is said to be made after God's image, because the very essence of God is in every man from his original, and that not in the soul only but in the body; and that though the devil have by a kind of carnal copulation got into, and possessed himself of the body, yet that the divine essence remaineth still in the soul: which notwithstanding it is by sin become mortal, and is breathed out into the air, yet in the regenerate by means of the Spirit it becometh consubstantial and coeternal with God. That Christ should have come to carry 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 taste of threw himself and his posterity into perdition. That None are guilty of mortal sin, till they be twenty year old; because they have no knowledge of good or evil till then; nor are therefore till then to be catechised: 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 Before Christ's coming the Angels only, not God, were worshipped: nor were any regenerate by the Spirit: nor did their faith regard anymore then terrestrial good things; save that some few by apropheticall spirit might aloof off have some smatch of spiritual things. That 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 eternal. That The Law was given only for a time; and that men were then saved by the observation of it; which was then observed, when men did what they could, who might therefore glory then in their works, being justified wholly by them: but that men are not now to be scared with it. That Faith is nothing else but to believe Christ to be the Son of God: and to justify, nothing, but to make a man righteous, who was sinful before: and that we are now justified, partly by faith, and partly by works. That On God's 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 he scoffeth at those that build their faith upon God's promises, or that mention them in their prayers. That There is a perfect purity in every holy action; and such as may endure even the extreme rigor of God's justice. That Abraham was indeed justified by works: howbeit, that his believing is first said to be imputed to him for righteousness, 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 favor regarding his soldiers mind and good will, would be pleased to accept the good endeavor 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 righteousness by his good works. Which is all, saith Calvin, that he ascribeth unto faith, either in us, or in him. Whose faith, also he saith, as of others before Christ was no true faith but a figure of true faith, and the righteousness imputed to him no spiritual but a carnal righteousness, 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 sink, in this stinking 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 principal of his tenets, though not so prodigious as those of Servetus, yet blasphemous and vile enough, are these: He denieth not Christ's deity and eternity only, with Arius; but his existence at all also before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary, with Photinus; and so maketh him a mere man. He denieth Christ to have been a redeemer, or to have wrought any redemption, or to have paid any price or ransom unto God for us, truly and properly so termed; or that by his sufferings any satisfaction at all was made unto God for our sins; or that God is thereby reconciled unto us; or that thereby he merited ought from God either for himself or for us. That he is therefore only called a Savior, and is said to save, partly because he teacheth us by his doctrine, and showeth us by his practice the way to life eternal, and confirmeth the same to us by the miracles that he wrought, and by his dying and rising again from the dead; and partly, because he hath power given him by God to make the same good unto all that believe in him: That to believe in him is nothing else but to obey him, or to keep his precepts under hope of eternal life thereby to be obtained; and that this is the very form and essence of justifying faith; and that for so doing a man is justified and accepted to life eternal; and that it is therefore in our power by our good works to attain thereunto. This is the sum of his doctrine concerning man's 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 concur 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 defense of himself herein, and the censure of others by M ^r Walker himself appealed to, 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 choice, and of sufficient credit 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 funeral of a friend, nor know certainly what he holdeth or hath taught, I say no more, but as they sometime of their son, 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 righteousness of Christ be imputed in the act of justification, is to me a great question. And M ^r Walker's reading herein (as, I confess, it may well be) is better then mine, if he can show where either he did ever handle it, or is reported so to have done. Nor do I find in all M ^r Calvin's large relation and refutation of Servetus his blasphemies, where ever he propounded or maintained any question in such terms, as this by M ^r Walker is here conceived in. For Socinus, it is true, that in prosecution of his discourses, wherein he laboreth to prove Christ to be such a Savior only as was out of him before described, he is enforced to acknowledge, that Faith, such as he meaneth, that is, Obedience to Christ's commandments doth justify, 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 Calvin also well observeth, are found oft to enterfere, and to cross 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 denial of the Imputation of Christ's righteousness, 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 heretics (and out of the 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 heretical and blasphemous, because it may be deduced from assertions of that nature: for if we shall condemn as heretical and blasphemous, whatsoever by necessary consequence may be extracted from those dotages that some blasphemous heretics 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 heretics have been held. For example: That Christ's body is not really present in the Sacrament, nor is sacrificed and offered up to God in the Mass, doth necessarily follow from the opinion of Eutyches and others, who maintained the human nature of Christ to be swallowed up into his Godhead; from the dotages of Simon, Saturn, Basilides, and many more, who held that he never suffered at all; of Apelles, who held that his body was dissolved into the four elements; of Seleucus, Manes, and Hermes, that held it fastened to the stars, or lodged in the sun: That there is no purgatory, nor use of invocation of Saints, or of singing masses for souls deceased, followeth necessarily from the opinion of the Sadducees that held no spirits, and from the 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 pretended the rather to maintain, because by it those Popish errors would be easily and evidently overthrown. For who is so meanly versed in the art of reasoning as not to know, That the clearest truths may be deduced from the grossest falsehoods that may be. As, grant a stone to have life, and a 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 concur in judgment with those that should maintain the former; or hold any falsehood, much less any absurdity, though those positions that infer 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 heretical 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 Judaism, Paganism 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 performed on man's part for the obtaining of Justification, shall have all Jews, Pagans, 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 concur with such heretics as have been spoken of in some point, be it a truth or an error 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 only 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 material, and I leave it to be judged by what himself hath spoken for his own defense in way of answer thereunto. But should a man, putting in a cross 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, The carnal people, saith he, might glory in their deeds, but we may not but in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ: We may only 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 ourselves. 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 To justify is a term of judicature ; that, it signifieth not to make a man inherently righteous, or to infuse righteousness into him; but to deem him, repute him, pronounce him righteous; that they do amiss that confound justification and sanctification, the one with the other ; that That faith whereby we are justified is not a bare belief or assent unto the truth of God's word ; that Neither faith, nor works, believing in Christ, or obeying him, are the meritorious causes of justification; or do or can, in regard of any worthin them, merit ought at God's hands: nor doth faith itself justify 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 shameless (and yet shameless enough are they) as to condemn them therefore for Socinian heretics, 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 justification consists in remission of sins, which for my part I deem erroneous, and suppose that elsewhere I have evidently shown it so to be; howbeit Calvin, Beza, Olevian, Ursine, Zanchi, Piscator, Pareus, Musculus, Bullinger, Fox, and divers others of great note and name, yea 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 condemned as heretics, much less as blasphemous heretics, but had in high esteem, as their worth, parts and works well deserved, by those that therein dissented from them.

I will add but one instance more, Socinus in the very entrance into his Treatise of Christ the Savior affirmeth, that God might if he had pleased, without breach of his justice, have pardoned man's sin freely, without any satisfaction required: and the same he after again presseth and prosecuteth in his ensuing discourses. Whether this be an error or no, I stand not now to discuss. Vorstius herein concurred with Socinus; and is for the same reproved by Tossanus; Grotius likewise for affirming the same is taxed by Ravenspergerus; defended by Vossius, who citeth Divines not a few, both old and new, saying the same: And it is maintained, to pass by all others, by Calvin, Musculus, Zanchi, Grineus, Faius, Casman, Tilenus, Franzius, Smiglesius, and our reverend D ^r Twisse; yet I am persuaded that no wise or discreet man at least will hence conclude any of these to be therefore Socinian Heretics.

And M ^r Walker might do well to be better advised before he charge his Christian brethren and fellow-laborers in the work of God's Ministry, with these odious imputations of heresy and blasphemy, (then which what can be more heinous, 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 needlessly into the fire? the answer is ready from what already hath been said; I am the only 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 business, and I could not therefore do less for so worthy a servant of God, and mine ancient acquaintance; whom I always reverenced while he lived as a man deserving singular respect for his piety and learning, and zeal for God's cause, which his works left behind him do sufficiently manifest, and will testify to ensuing posterity, and both do and shall still honor deservedly the memory 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 testify what I then heard and saw, was a party in, and subscribed to with others; and to second the pious intents of his son, 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 adjoined thereunto.

I say no more, but wish only Veritatem cum Charitate, that Truth may with Charity be pursued on all parts. So grant, good Lord, for thy Christ's sake, now and ever. Amen.