A42456:35
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.
And for the latter position, that Christs righteousness is not imputed in the act of justification; if by Christs righteousness be understood his habitual holiness, or his actual righteousness consisting in the perfect observation of the Law moral: here also two of M. Walkers Authors must of necessity leave him, unless they will condemn themselves for blasphemous heretics. For both Pareus and Lubbe•tus, going Ursines and Piscators way, hold justification to consist wholly in remission of sins. For so Pareus expressly (besides what out of him velsewhere) in his Commentaries before mentioned; uThe Apostle placeth justification in the ⟨p. 13⟩Remission of sins alone. Nor doth *Lubbertus herein depart from him. And both therefore also herein concur; that they ground our justification, not upon the Righteousness of Christ, so understood, as hath been said; but on the merit of, and satisfaction made by his sufferings. That which, as for Pareus, by a whole xTreatise written of purpose by him about that Argument, doth most evidently appear; so for Lubbertus is also clear enough, by divers ypassages, even in those works which were written by him professedly against the errors of Socinus. Yea so far doth Pareus proceed herein, that he sticketh not to avow that, zThose that ascribe the merit of righteousness unto Christs active obedience or his native holiness, cdo thereby derogate from the death of Christ, and do undoubtedly make it vain, or superfluous. Now I would gladly understand from M. Walker what he thinketh of Pareus, and whether he count not him a blasphemous heretic, as well as M. Wotton. As for me & my fellows, as in scorn now he calleth them, (tho peradventure as good men as M. Walker himself) I hold it no disgrace to me, to be yoked with such; and to have deemed rather as they, then as M. Walker either then did, or now doth. Mean while how little cause M. Walker hath to crake so much of these Authors, by what hath been said,