A42456:104
An answer to Mr. George Walkers vindication, or rather, fresh accusation wherein he chargeth…
An answer to Mr. George Walkers vindication, or rather, fresh accusation wherein he chargeth Mr. Wotton, besides his former foul aspersions of heresy and blasphemy, with Arianism, Mr. Gataker with Socinianism, Dr. Gouge and Mr. Downham with a false attestation, Dr. Baylie and Mr. Stock with self-condemnation, all the eight ministers employed in the business between himself and Mr. Wotton with partiality and unjust judgement : upon occasion of a relation concerning that business / written by the said Thomas Gataker and by him now again avowed, wherein the said M. Walkers vindication is in many things showed to be an untrue relation.An answer to Mr. George Walkers vindication, or rather, fresh accusation wherein he chargeth Mr. Wotton, besides his former foul aspersions of heresie and blasphemy, with Arianism, Mr. Gataker with Socinianism, Dr. Gouge and Mr. Downham with a fase attestation, Dr. Baylie and Mr. Stock with self-condemnation, all the eight ministers employed in the busines between himself and Mr. Wotton with partiality and unjust judgement : upon occasion of a relation concerning that busines / written by the said Thomas Gataker and by him now again avowed, wherein the said M. Walkers vindication is in many things shewed to be an untrue relation.
London: printed by E.G. for F. Clifton, 1642
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Secondly, I desire to have it considered, whether it were equal to censure a man for an heretic, upon bare positions or sayings extracted out of his writings, without any regard had to, or notice taken of, his own Expositions of them; or his Reasons alleged to prove his dissent in them from the errors of those ⟨p. 37⟩whom he is charged to concur with; confirmed by collation of place with place in his writings, and by consideration of the main scope and drift of the dispute, course and tenor of the discourse, and the different sense and meaning of the words and terms used by either. For example, M. Walker in his parallel allegeth a saying of Servetus, (and that is all that he hath out of him throughout his whole Parallel) that qFor one act of Faith was Abraham righteous. And presuming that M. Wotton saith the very same, (though he allege not any one place at all out of M. Wotton, where these words are found) from hence concludeth, that M. Wotton and Servetus do in the doctrine of justification hold one and the same opinion in all points. Now suppose we that the very selfsame words were found in M. Wottons writings: and again, that that saying in Servetus were condemned, yea and that justly, for heretical: yet were it therefore agreeable to equity, without further disquisition, to pass sentence thereupon, that M. Wotton & Serv•tus do in all things hold the same opinion in the point of justification? yea or, that in those very words they speak the same thing? when it may easily be made evidently to appear, that Servetus speaketh of justification in one sense, and M. Wotton entreateth of justification in another sense: and that neither the Faith, nor the Righteousness, nor the manner of imputation of Righteousness, that they speak of in their writings are the same. That which any may soon see, that shall read rthe sum of Servetus his discourse, related out of Calvin in my postscript. Surely by the same reason might M. Walker prove S. Paul and Servetus to be both of them in all things of ⟨p. 38⟩one mind concerning the doctrine of justification; because s