Howbeit M. Walker should have done well, to have delivered M. Wottons Exposition (as he termeth it) all out. and not to have hacked it off (as he hath done) by the hams. For his words are entire thus, aI never ⟨p. 59⟩said, or thought, that Faith doth justify us by it self. (and yet had he so said, he had said no more then Bucer long before him had done) This only I say, that in this Proposition, Faith is counted for Righteousness, the word Faith is to be taken properly, not tropically; the question being in such propositions, not of the meritorious or formal cause of justification, but of the condition required on our part in stead of keeping the Law. To which I may well ad out of his Animadversions, which I have by me, on the dispute between Lubbertus and Bertius, these sayings of his to the same effect. bFaith doth not justify us, as a quality, habitually; neither is it either the matter, or the form of our Righteousness; in that regard alone it is to justification available, as it relieth upon Christ, to the obtaining of forgiveness of sins for his obedience. And again, cFaith surely doth not justify, but only by and for the obedience of Christ. When it is said to be imputed unto righteousness, it is thereby signified what we must perform, that we may be justified. And a little after, dBy faith we are said to be justified, not in a tropical, but in a proper manner of speaking; whereby is signified, that Faith is that, which God requireth of us to the obtaining of justification for the obedience and sacrifice of Christ. For as for those words that M. Walker putteth into his third Error, that he chargeth upon M. Wotton, eThat Faith doth not justify us, as it apprehendeth Christ and his righteousness; they appear not in any passage at all by M. Walker out of M. Wottons writings alleged. So that M. Walker maketh M. Wotton speak, not what he doth, but what himself pleaseth; ⟨p. 60⟩and then pronounceth him an heretic, not for what he saith, but for what himself would have him say. To make this evident to the meanest understanding. Should a man say, The word hand in this proposition, my hand feeds my body; or in this, This child is fed by hand, is taken properly not tropically; would it by any reasonable consequence thence be inferred, that the party so saying should therefore affirm, that the hand doth not feed by putting meat into the mouth?
Howbeit M. Walker should have done wel, to have delivered M. Wottons Exposition (as he tearmeth it) all out. and not to have hackt it off (as he hath done) by the hams. For his words are entire thus, aI never ⟨p. 59⟩said, or thought, that Faith doth justifie us by it selfe. (and yet had he so said, he had said no more then Bucer long before him had done) This onely I say, that in this Proposition, Faith is counted for Righteousnes, the word Faith is to be taken properly, not tropically; the question being in such propositions, not of the meritorious or formall cause of justification, but of the condition required on our part in stead of keeping the Law. To which I may well ad out of his Animadversions, which I have by me, on the dispute between Lubbertus and Bertius, these sayings of his to the same essect. bFaith doth not justifie us, as a quality, habitually; neither is it either the matter, or the forme of our Righteousnes; in that regard alone it is to justification available, as it relieth upon Christ, to the obtaining of forgivenes of sins for his obedience. And againe, cFaith surely doth not justifie, but onely by and for the obedience of Christ. When it is said to be imputed unto righteousnes, it is thereby signified what we must perform, that we may be justified. And a little after, dBy faith we are said to be justified, not in a tropicall, but in a proper manner of speaking; whereby is signified, that Faith is that, which God requireth of us to the obtaining of justification for the obedience and sacrifice of Christ. For as for those words that M. Walker putteth into his third Error, that he chargeth upon M. Wotton, eThat Faith doth not justifie us, as it apprehendeth Christ and his righteousnes; they appeare not in any passage at all by M. Walker out of M. Wottons writings alledged. So that M. Walker maketh M. Wotton speak, not what he doth, but what himselfe pleaseth; ⟨p. 60⟩and then pronounceth him an hereticke, not for what he saith, but for what himselfe would have him say. To make this evident to the meanest understanding. Should a man say, The word hand in this proposition, my hand feeds my body; or in this, This child is fed by hand, is taken properly not tropically; would it by any reasonable consequence thence be inferred, that the party so saying should therefore affirm, that the hand doth not feed by putting meat into the mouth?
- aAns. to Err. 3. Relat. p. 27,
- bFides, tanquam qualitas, habitualiter non justificat; ncque m• teria est justificatinonis nostrae, neque forms: e• solâ ratione ad justificationem valet, quod in Christum recumbat, ad veniam delictorū propter ipsius obedientiam adipiscendam Ad dissert. 1. § 9.Fides, tanquam qualitas, habitualiter non justificat; ncque m• teria est justificatīonis nostrae, neque forms: e• solâ ratione ad justificationem valet, quod in Christum recumbat, ad veniam delictorū propter ipsius obedientiam adipiscendam Ad dissert. 1. § 9.
- cFides certè non justificat, nisi tantum per & propter Christi obedientiam. Cum dicitur ad justitiam imputari, quid nos praestare oporteat, ut per Christum justificemur, significatur. Ibid.
- dFide justificari dicimur, non tropicâ, sed propriâ l•cutione: qu• significatur, fidem illud esse, quod Deus à nobis flagitat, ad justificationem conseqendam propter Christi •bedientiam & sacrificium. Ibid.
- eParall, Error. 3. Rela• p. 14:
