FIRST then it is false, that I cha­lenged any Minister to dispute: I onlie yelded for the satisfaction of Syr William Harington, to giue a meeting to any whom he should bringe. Secondly, it is false, that I was assisted by any more Priests then onlie one, by any more Catholikes then foure; I for solemnelie conditioned at the beginning, that there should be no more then fiue or six persons at the most on a side: to the end the Conference might be verie secret, and [Page 10] priuate, without concourse of people, or noyse abroad, for feare of affoarding disgust vnto the State, in that our quiet tyme of peace and conni­uencie. Which conditions I punctuallie obserued, though the Aduersarie was so bold as to violate and infring them, both by bringing more then the ap­pointed number, as by publishing also the whole discourse, to the open view and sight of the Re­alme; yet so fraudulentlie, so corruptlie, as for­ceth me to this right and vnfaygned replie. Then, although it be true, that I intreated the disputation might be performed sweetlie, and with all mildnes, without bitter wordes, or reproachfull taunts; yet M. Walker made no such answere as he hath forged in his Pamphlet. True also it is, that I excepted against the vnmannerlie tearmes of calling our Church Whore of Babylon, the Pope Antichrist, & de­sired no such odious Epithetes might be vsed, now especially whē it pleased the Kings Maiesty to send to his Holines for a dispensation for the mariage of our Noble Prince; Yet I sayd not, that his Maiestie sued to his Holines, or gaue the Pope that honour: The awe of reuerence I bore to so mightie a Mo­narch did temper my tongue from vsing any such wordes, as seemed to carry the least shew of distast. At length that we might proceed more solidelie, and not floate vp and downe vpon vncertaynties, I desired we might both agree in some generall positiōs, or irreuocable Tenents, as grounds of our ensuing dispute. Wherevpon being to proue, That [Page 11] the Protestants Church is not the true Church of Iesus Christ, nor, That it hath his true faith, I demanded of M. Walker, whether the true Church be alwayes visible, or no?

The true Catholike Church is not visible, because it Yet M. Rogers a­mong his articles to which this mini­ster did, or ought to haue sworne hath: The visible Church is a Catholike Church. art. 1 [...]. comprehendeth the whole companie of the elect of which the greatest part being Saynts in heauen, are without the [...]each of mans eye, and cannot be seene.

My question is not of the Church Triumphant in heauen, but of the true Catholike Church Mili­tant vpon earth.

But thus your wordes and question cohere not togea­ther: for it is as absurd to say, that the Catholike Church is militant on earth, as it is absurd to affirme, that all mankind, euen the vniuersall race of Adam, are now liuing.

Was S. Cyprian then absurd, who called the Cyp. l. 4. ep. 9. militant Church, vnited and conioyned in the vnion and linke of Priests, adhering togeather, The one Catho­like Church? To communicate with Cornelius, the head Idem ep. 52. only of the militant, was to communicate with the Ca­tholike Church? Was S. Augustine absurd, who tear­meth [Page 12] the militant Church, whose communication we Aug. de ver a relig. cap. 7. Idem ep. 170. con­tra Cres­con. l. 1. ca. 29. de bap­tis contra Donatist. l. 3. ca. 16. Tract. 6. in Iohan▪ de fi [...]e ad Petrum cap. 19. must hold, The Catholike Church? The militāt Church, dispersed ouer the face of the earth, The Catholik Church? The militant Church, in which alone one baptisme may be wholesomelie obtayned, The one incorrupt Catholike Church? The militant Church, in which by imposi­tion of handes, the holy Ghost is giuen▪ The only Catho­like Church? The Church, in which good and euill be, as chaffe and corne, The Catholike Church? The Church in which the sacrifice of bread and wine in faith and charity ceaseth not to be offered throughout the vniuer­sal world, The holie Catholike Church? But to presse you no further with the testimonies of men; was the Sonne of God absurd, when he sayd, Other sheep [...] Ioan. 10. v. 16. I haue, that are not of this fold, thē also I must bring; & they shall heare my voyce, & there shalbe made one fold, & one Pastour? Who were these other sheep, but ei­ther Predestinate, or many of them at least? To what Fold were they brought? Without doubt to Christs visible, to Christs militāt, to Christs Cath. Church: for to no other would he bring them, no other is his fold, no other his one, and that singular one, of which he is chiefe and supreme Pastour. Therfore not your inuisible, but the visible, and militant is the true Catholike Church of IESVS Christ Neyther are the Predestinate, as you pre­tend, before they be called, mēbers of his Church, because this is the oracle of Truth, They are not of my fold. So much by the way for this. Now that you may cease your wrangling, and stick no longer in [Page 13] ambiguity of tearmes; I tell you once agayne, that I speake not of your Catholike, and Inuisible, but of that militant Church, which we are bound to obey, and heare, that, of whose Communion we ought to be; that, of which Christ sayd, di [...] Ecclesiae, Tell the Math. 18. v. 17. Church. What hold you of this? I [...] this Church vi­sible, or no?

I distinguish. That Church may be two wayes con­sidered; either in regard of her outward men, outward du­ties of Christianitie, outward preaching of the Word, and administration of the sacraments, and so it is visible: Or in respect of the inward election, inward faith, and spiri­tuall graces, and so it is inuisible.

Reserue your distinctions, vntill you neede them, and now answere directly to the Question.

Aske me any question, and try whether I will vse any such tergiuersation. What, is your Con­science so horride, or cause so bad, as you dare ne­uer giue a direct answere?

I answere, as I belieue.

And doe you not belieue, what your owne [Page 14] men teach concerning this poynt? Doe they not teach, that the Church which we ought to heare, is visible? Or may we heare an inuisible? Doth not D. Whitaker define it by these markes, to wit, by the VVhita­ker [...]cntro 2. q. 5. ca. 17. & 18. true preaching o [...] the word; and the true administration of the Sacraments? And although he addeth that the whole Essence of the Church consisteth in them; yet he sayth, that these markes signifie, and denote a visible Church. Now, doe not you belieue as he doth? Or are you afrayd to confesse that Church to be visible which he confesseth? Man consisteth of an inuisible essence, yet is a visible man: so the Church may haue some inuisible dowries, yet be a visible Church.

You wronge D. Whitaker: He neuer taught that the whole Essence of the Church consisted in the true peaching of the word, and administration of Sacraments.

I wrong him not: He teacheth, writeth, and di­uulgeth it in print; though you wrong both your self and vs, in making these digressions, and pic­king euery occasion to run from the matter.

Dare you stand to this, that M. Whitaker writeth it? I haue b [...]th read him, and studied him, I am sure he hath no such matter.

His bookes are extant: you studied thē sleight­ly, or vnderstood them not. I am sure he hath it.

Because I will not spend tyme in contesting with See how cunning­ly he di­uerteth from his owne ex­ception, and from D. Whi­takers expresse wordes, who say­eth: Quaestio non est de notis in­uisibilis Ecclesiae &c. The Question is not of the marks of [...]e in­uisible Church. you, let this be the issue before these Gentlemen: let vs send for D. Whitakers workes, and if I doe not shew that he doth proue against Bellarmine, that the Catholike Church i [...] inuisible, & that this is a mayne poin [...] large lie disputed by him, and a mayne controuersie betweene him and Bellarmine, let me branded with the marke of a wilfull liar.

Will you still fly to the ambush of your hidden Church? Shall I neuer bring you into the open field? Haue I not sufficiently inculcated vnto you, that my question is of the Church now militant on earth; of that Church which we ought to heare, and obey; of that which M. Whitaker describeth by the marks before mentioned; of that which your selfe distinguished to be partly visible, partly inuisible? And run you now back againe to your counterfait Catholike, and wholy inuisible Church? Are you so sodainly distracted of your wi [...]s, as not only to for­get what I had sayd, but what your selfe had writ­ten immediatly before? Yet perhaps I may mi­stake: It proceeded not so much from the gid­dines [Page 16] of your braine, as from the guiltines of your cōscience; which mistrusting the vaine & vnadui­sed chalenge you made, would now like a cunning Cheater, by foysting in these words guilefullie, di­uert it to a quite cōtrary purpose. For I neuer denied that M. Whitaker forgeth an inuisible Catholique Church; but I so often canuased you frō straying Contro. 2. q [...] ca. 18. fol 494. & cap. [...]1. Nos non inuisibilis Ecclesiae, sed veras certasque n [...]tas visi­bilis Eccle­siae quae­rimus. thither, as cōmon sense might haue taught you to keep on your way, & stād to your tackling in man­taining the quarrell, or saucie exception you tooke against me, for saying that M. Whitaker placed the whole essence of the Church in the true preaching of the Word, and true administration of the Sacra­ments. This was that which then I sayd. Against which you contested as before: your words, to de­liuer the contestation truly as it was, I must in part repeate againe, leauing out that counterfait passage which you of meer fraud so treacherously insert.

Well I am content to make this the very issue of our meeting: And if M Whitaker affirme any such thing, let me be branded with the marke of a willfull liar, impostor, and false Prophet. But if I shew the cōtra­ry out of his owne writings, then shall you cōfesse your selfe a forger, a falsifier, an impostor, & a Priest of Baal. The gentlemen all confessed this was faire play, & desi­red it might be soc. Wherupon M. Smith ( as M. Walker writeth▪ began to drawbacke & shewed himselfe vnwil­ling, & much affraid to hazard his credit so quickly, & would gladly haue left this poynt, & fallen into another.

How little I was affraid to hazard my credit in that matter, the standers by at that tyme can witnesse; and the euidences I am now to bring out of M. Whitaker shall manifestly declare: for he sup­posing, that wheresoeuer the Word is trulie prea­ched, there it is heard, there it is belieued, and con­serued, and there it fructifieth in the hearts of some; VVhitak in respon. ad 3. rat. Camp. expresly auerreth of the markes afore mentioned. 1. We ascribe these properties to the Church, which com­prise the true nature of the Church, whose presence make the Church, and their absence marre, or destroy the Church. But if they comprehend the true nature of the Church, without which it cannot stand; they contayne not the accidentall, but the essentiall na­ture. If the essentiall Nature, the essence: yf the essence, the whole essence, because it is indiuisible; they must comprehēd it whole, or not at all; it can­not be comprehended in part, because it hath no parts. 2. He teacheth that the pure preaching of the VVhitak. [...]ontro. 2. q. 5. cap. 17. 13. Vt causae effection prof [...] &c. ita veritas Ecclesi [...] constitute [...]sque caus [...] est. Word, is the cause of the Church &c. Then, as the cause produceth her effect, so truth doth constitute the Church, and is cause therof▪ Besides he often affirmeth that, though this cause be more hidden to vs, yet it is more knowne in nature, more knowne in it selfe then the Church: where he vndoubtedly speaketh not of the efficient, but of the formall cause. And who is so meane a student, as not to knowe, that the for­mall cause of a thing, is the chiefe, principall, and [Page 18] formall essence of that, whose cause it is. 3. D. Whi­taker holdeth that to be the essence of the Church which he doth comprehend in the definition of the Church (as you very impertinently vrge against me;) and yet the description he maketh by these markes I now handle, he plainly tearmeth a defi­nition VVitak. in resp. ad 3. rat. Cāp. Hanc tu definitio­nem in na­tiuis ip­fius rei quam de­finimus &c. Controu. 2. q. 5. ca. 17. Quae definiunt, ea deno­tant Ec­clesiam &c. Sic quid sit Equus, Leo, A­quila ex definitione e [...]icitur. of the Church, in his answere to M. Campian saying: This definition engendred in the natiue, and inward principles of the thing it selfe, which wee define, thou shalt neuer be able to ouerthrow. Againe in ano­ther place speaking of the same markes he sayeth; Those things which define, those denote, and signifie the Church &c. So what a Horse what a Lion, what an Ea­gle is, by their definition it is knowne: Therfore as the definition of an Horse, of a Lion, of an Eagle con­tayne their whole essence; so the aforsayd marks which define the Church, contayne the whole es­sence and nature of the Church. By these three Ar­guments so stronge, as M. Walker is not able to an­swere them, so cleere, as he cannot delude them; the truth of my assertion is irreproueably confir­med, & he by his owne challeng and engagement, is openly conuinced to be a wilfull liar, a forger, an impostor, a false prophet, and a Priest of Baal: for such he must be chronicled, for such entitled; and whatsoeuer heerafter he shall say or write, with that note of infamie, must be all discarded. Euen such is that which heere he writeth immediatly after.

Gentlemen it is true, that D. Whitaker maintaines, that the Word trulie preached, and the Sacraments rightly administred are the certaine and infallible notes, and markes, by which euery true particular Church may be discerned to be Christs true Church; and you know, that the markes of a thinge differ from the essence and substance of it; as the signe hanging at the dore of a Tauerne, disters from the Tauerne it selfe: and the habit and cowle of a Monke, or Friar, which is the marke of his Order, differs from the Monke himselfe &c.

Where were your wits, where was your iudg­ment, where the reading of you Cantabrigian Professors, when you wrote this at randome of their doctrine? For the signe of a Tauerne, the habit of a monke, are ou ward & extrinsecall signes; those of M. Whitakers [...]c [...]et & internall: yours only knowne to the eye of sēse, his to the vnderstāding & eye of faith: Contro. [...] ▪ q. [...]. c. 18. yours separable his altogeather inseparable: yours may be changed or taken away without hurt or annoi­ance of the subiects they designe, his cannot be re­moued without destruction of the Church: yours In resp. ad 3. rat. Cāp. [...]stas nos Ecclesiae verissimas atque [...] proprieta­tes esse de­fendimus. are not so much as accidentall qualities, originallie springing from the essence of the things, but volun­tary signes instituted (as the Logitians say) to sig­nifie, at the will only and pleasure of man; M. Whitakers are most true, and (as he calleth them) [...], proprietates, essentiall properties, essentiall mar­kes, grafted in the inward principles of the Church it selfe; [Page 20] so little conuersant are you in the monuments of your Maister▪ Besides, you do not only write thus opposit vnto him, but most childishly also contra­dict your self, tearming these notes of M. Whitaker, certaine and infallible, and yet comparing them with mutable and vncertaine signes, which only signi­fie at mans appoyntment. For an Iuye bush is not alwaies an infallible signe of a Tauerne, nor the habit of a Friar an infallible marke of him; as the Tragicall murders, which no Friars, but bloudy Homicides haue committed in Friars weedes, and many other Comedies can tell you. But because you are so ignorant, as not to knowe your selfe, what to say, or what your owne men teach con­cerning this poynt; let me examine you about an­other, touching the Infallibilitie of the Church. What hold you? May the whole militant Church on earth erre, or noe?

This is a captious and ambiguous question, & cannot directly in one word, negatiue or affirmatiue, be answe­red vnto.

No? D. Reynolds answereth affirmatiuely, that It is the second of his [...] Con­clusions printed at the end of his Confe­dance. it may erre; This is one of his Theses publickly de­fended in the Vniuersitie of Oxford; but you thinke all things captious, because you are set to cauill, and willing to decline the disputation we haue in hand▪

Nay I s [...]y it is captious and ambiguous, because in some respect it may e [...]re, in others it cannot. If we consi­der it according to her Militancie, Weaknes, and Imper­fections of men who are lyars; so wee tr [...]e say it may erre. If we consider it according to the direction of Gods holy Spirit, the assistance of Christ, his Prophets and Apostles as it is guyded by their doctrine, cleaueth close to the Scripture, and swarueth not from them; soe long we teach that it is infallible, and cannot erre.

But thus euerie Hereticall Assemblie is also in­fallible. Protestāts can cha­lenge no more cer­taynty, then all other he­retikes haue do­ne. Thus the Iewes, Turkes, Infidels, & Diuells themselues are infallible; for as long as any of these closely adhere to the word of God, are guided by his doctrine▪ and follow his direction; so long they cannot erre. And what? hath your Church no more priuiledge, or freedome from errour, then Iewes, then Turkes, then Diuels?

Yes, because Iewes, and Turkes adhere not to the word of God, they follow not the truth, we doe.

Doe you, because you say you doe? Will not they say the same, & haue as good warrant as you? But how shall we know you follow the truth? [Page 22] what proofs alleage you? To chaleng it thus with­out proofes, seeing it is the matter controuerted between vs, is Petere principium; that is, miserably to begge the argument we handle, or to giue that for a reason which is only in question: both most ridiculous, and hissed out of all schooles. Therfore M. Walker was so wary, as to conceale in his Sūme this inference of mine, and the foolish reply, or desperate Non-plus of his. Moreouer, to say your Church cannot erre, as it cleaueth close to Gods Word, speaketh and teacheth according to it, or as long as it swarueth not from thence, is nothing els thē to auouch Their ri­diculous answere that they cannot erre, as long as they speake true &c. (though in other wordes) that it cannot erre▪ as it cleaueth to truth, speaketh and teacheth according to truth; or that it cannot erre, as long as it erreth not: which is as idle as the former was foolish; be­cause to adhere to Gods word, is to adhere to the truth; to swarue from thence, is to runne into er­rour. So that this answere is nothing to the pur­pose, no way able to satisfie my demand: for by as­king of you, Whether your Church may erre or no, I demaund, whether it be so assisted by God, and guided by his holy spirit, as it must needs cleaue to his word, it cannot depart from it in deliuering any point of faith? What answere you to this, is your Church thus inerrable, or no?

I haue told you alreadie, how it may erre, and how it may not.

And I haue refuted what you sayed. If you haue nothing els to answere to my Interrogatories; answere me a little to a Syllogisme, or two I shall propose; by which I meane to proue, euen by this which you haue graunted, that the Protestants Church of England, is not the true Church of IESVS Christ. And thus I frame my argument.

That Church which hath not the word of God trulie preached, and infallibly deliuered, is not the true Church of IESVS Christ.

But the Protestant Church of England, hath not the word of God trulie preached, and in­fallibly deliuered.

Therfore, it is not the true Church of IESVS Christ.

I denie the Minor.

I proue the Minor.

The word of God preached in the Church of England is corrupted with errours, and the men that deliuer it, are subiect to errours.

Therfore the Church of England hath not the word of God truly preached, and infallibly deliuered.

I deny the Antecedent.

The Antecedent hath two parts, the first of them I declare by induction. Malachy 2. v. 7. where The first Corrup­tion of the Pro­testants Bible ar­gued and euinced. all true copies haue; The lippes of the Priest shall keepe knowledge, and the law they shal [...] require of his mouth; you corruptly reade; The lippes of the Priest should keepe knowledge, and they should require the law of his mouth, contrary to the Hebrew text, which in­steed of shall keepe, hath Iism [...]ru, insteed of shall seeke, Iebakkesu; contrary to the Greeke [...] and [...], contrary the Latine which is custo­dient, and requirent, all being of the Future tense, and Indicatiue moode; which you haue changed into the Preterimperfectense of the Optatiue, or Subiunctiue moode; altering therin both moode and tense of set purpose, to gainsay the infallibility of Christs visible pastours, who lawfully succeed in the Apostles roome; and to patronage an errour, or rather Heresy of your owne, That the Priests & Prelats of Gods Church may erre in doctrine; and so the people not bound to require the law at their mouthes.

We haue not corrupted the Hebrew text, for the true meaning of the Holy Ghost is perfectly deliuered by our Translation.

But answere me directly. Are not the Hebrew, In which they haue altered both the mood & tense written by God. Greeke, and Latin wordes all in the future Tense? Do they not all import, shall keepe, and shall require? And haue not you altered both the tense, and moode? Is it not so? what say you?

Though the wordes be in the future tense, yet wee haue kept the true sense, because the future tense in Hebrew by reason of vau conuersiuum, may sometime stand for the preterimperfect tense of the Optatiue, Po­tentiall, o [...] Subiunctiue moode, as our translation hath; therfore it is no [...] different, nor irregular from the He­brew, which is the Originall.

But this is a meere collusion, for heere is no Vau conuersiuum in that place, nor can there be, as all that are cunninge in the Hebrew can tell; so that this shift will not serue your turne; nor that other of keeping the sense. For I accuse you of cor­rupting the text: But to alter the tense, to alter the moode, to alter the word of the Holy Ghost, is to corrupt the text, to change the diuine chara­cters written by the finger of God: Therfore your Translation is guilty of this change, and corrup­tion. Otherwise if adulterers of Scripture, may iudge of the sense, where shall you find any adulte­ration? [Page 26] what Heretike can be conuinced of corrup­tiō? For aske the Arians, aske the Valentinians, aske Marcion, who for paring, or gnawing away ma­ny places of Gods word, was called Mus-Ponticus, the mouse of Pontus, aske any of these Corrupters; they will all answere, they keep the sense, & bring as sound arguments, as you do, for the maintenance therof: for such is your proofe.

It was [...]euer the purpose of Gods spirit in that place, or by these wordes to teach, that the law should awayes be taught truly, and infallibly by the Priests, and Pastours, who succe [...]d Moyses, or the Apostles locally, in the church by a continued succession.

Heere againe you fall to Petere principium; for we proue, it was his purpose, because his wordes enforce it. And haue you no other meanes to dis­proue it then by denying it was his purpose, becau­se he did neuer purpose it? And why did he neuer purpose it? Because is not agreable to the purpose of your Hereticall phrensie: Though it be conso­nāt & agreable to Gods sacred doctrine, vttered, & vnfolded in diuers other places, as when he sayeth, that his spirit, his wordes shal not depart out of the mouth Isa. 5 [...]. v. [...]. Luc. 10. v. 16. of his Prophets, and their seede, and seeds seede for euer. That, he who heareth the Pastours of the Church, hea­reth him: That, if any controuersy arise amongst inferi­ours, [Page 27] they shall come to the Priests of the Leuiticall stocke, Deut. 17. v. 8. & 9. These & diuers o­ther pas­sages, which I heer o­mit, I haue more lar­gely dis­cussed in the 3. part. of my An­tid. chap. 1. 2. & [...]. and do whatsoeuer they shall teach according to the law. It is consonant to these texts, and sundry the like; to which your translation being dissonant, it must needes be, not only a corruption of the text, but a deprauation also of the sense of the Holy Ghost.

That cannot be the sense, because the Priests, vnto whome the Prophet speaketh there in the 2. of Malachy, were Leuites, and succeded Aaron in the Priesthood, and yet they were departed out of the way; they caused many to fall in the law by their corrupt glosse; and their abuse of the couenant of Leui &c. Yea some of them had sacrifi­ced to Idols, as Iosephus sheweth in his history.

As though it were necessary for al Priests that haue lawfull calling to be free from errour? or such as are fensed from erring in fayth, should neuer be able to stumble in their liues? It is inough for the infalibility of Christs Spouse, that the high Priest, and his Consistory, that the head of the Church, & her generall Councels be inerrable. It is inough that God doth preserue his truth in the mouthes of vicious, and wicked men; as in the mouthes of Scribes, and Pharisies, when they sate on Moyses his Chaire; as the guift of prophesie in Ciaphas, of whom S. Iohn recordeth, that he prophesied, be­cause he was high Priest of that yeare. Seest thou [Page 28] (sayth S. Chrysostome) how great the power of Po [...]t [...] ­sic Ioan. 11. v. 51. Chrysost. hom. 4. in [...]oan. Aug▪ [...]. de Pasto. cap. 10. Velint, nolint pa­storesver­ba Dei dicturi sunt. [...]ll authority is? Gr [...]ce [...] touched the mouth▪ but not the [...]ewd, and villanous [...]art. And S. [...] of naughty pastours auoucheth; Will they, nill they &c. they shall speake the wordes of God; by reason of the promise, which heere, and els where he hath made them.

God did not make he [...]re a promise, but gaue a com­mandement▪ teaching what the Priests and people should do, and ought to do; like that, Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me. Exod. 20.

In respect of the people, I grant it is a Com­mandement of God, that they ought to learne, and require the law from the mouthes of the Priests. And I wonder how you presume to infring this cō ­maundement, by sending them from their publick voices, to your secret spirits, or hidden perswasions. Then by your owne cōfession (because it is the cō ­maundement, and Precept of God, which the peo­ple, as you write, ought to obey) it must needes fol­low, that his Priests haue his infallible promise and assurance of truth; otherwise the people could not with security repayre vnto them, otherwise they might erre, and be deluded by them in matters of fayth, they might be frustrated of their hope, & forfeite their saluation, euen by following the ex­presse will, and commaundement of God, which [Page 29] without open blasphe [...]y cannot be auerred. The same is manifestly declared by the reason the Holy Ghost assigneth, why the lippes of the Priest shall keepe knowledge, because he is the Angell of the Malae. [...]. v. 7. Cyril. in hun [...] lo [...]ū. Chrys. in [...]. ad T [...] ­moth. Lord of Hostes H [...] is called (saith S. Cyrill) the Angell of the Lord of Hostes, because he deliuereth vnto mē the Oracles of [...]iod, [...]dding nothing, withdrawing nothing, but e [...]en the same [...]e rec [...]iued of God. S. Chrysostome: The Priest is the Angell of our Lord, he speaketh nothing of him selfe: if thou despise, th [...]u despisest not him, but God. Moreouer, if this were only a commaundemēt giuen to Priests by way of direction what they should do; why did not your Translation expresse it according to the Hebrew in the future tēse, as they did other Commaundements; Thou shalt haue no o­ther Exod. 20. Gods but me: Thou shalt not ste [...]le: Thou shalt not commit adultery &c? Surely their conscience gaue them, that something more was heere cōprized, or els they would neuer haue altered the moode, and tense; they would neuer haue bin more affrayde of translating this commaundement truly, agreable to the Originall, then they were of others. This chā ­ge▪ this alteration, pleadeth them guilty; for let the sense be what it will; (though I haue euidently de­monstrated it to be as we teach;)

Either the Holy Ghost knew better then Pro­testants, what tense he should vse, to expresse that sense, or they better then he. Did they know better? O how detestable is their blasphemy, in ascribing more knowledge to men thē to God! Did he know [Page 30] better? O how diucl [...]sh was their arrogancy, in A dilem­ma vnan­swerable. presuming to alter the Tense oracled by the Holy Ghost, which he knew to be best, knew to be most fit, for the explication of his meaning! This is such a horned argument, or vnauoidable dilemma, as nei­ther M. Walker, nor any other Minister is able to answere.

Another corruption though more cunningly conueyed, is discouered in the 4. of Daniel v. 24. or The se­cond cor­ruption exami­ned, and proued to be such. 27. where the English Bible hath, Breake off thy sin­nes by righteousnes &c. insteed of Redeeme thou thy sinnes with Almes; For in the Latine it is Redime, in Greeke [...], in Hebrew, in rather in the Chal­deak it is Peruc, of Perac the roote, which also sig­nifieth to Redeeme.

That translation is senseles, and against all reason: for God neuer appoynted that mens sinn [...]s should be re­deemed.

Your proofe indeed is without sense, or rea­son: it is that idle Petitio principij, of which you haue bin often accused, yet for meere want of wit can neuer auoid. Haue you no better stuffe to al­leadge then this?

Yes, if you vnderstand, that Nabuchod [...]nozor [...] [Page 31] wicked Heathen King should by his owne righteousnes redeeme himselfe from his sinnes, you make Daniel a teacher of Heresie, and blasphemie.

You are spitefully bent stil to wrangle, or els you must needes know I vnderstand it not of his owne righteousnes. For Daniell exhorteth him to frequent almesdeedes, which first by way of con­gruity might procure Gods fauour, and after de­seruedly redeeme, or satisfie for the punishment of his sinnes. Which is a heauenly point of fayth, in­culcated againe by the Holy Ghost in the Prouerbs, By mercy, and truth iniquity is redeemed, or purged, as Prouerb. c. 16. v. 6▪ your owne Bible readeth: though that which fol­loweth in your Pamphlet be a most horrible, and M. Wal­ker in his printed summe pag. 25▪ Ibidem. monstrous slaunder, that Papists goe on in knowne sinne, in hope of absolution by confession, and pennance; when we constantly teach, that neither of them can auaile, without detestation of sinne, and full purpose of amendement. To this slaunder is ioyned another of his notable leasinges, reporting me to haue sayd, that Peruc signifies only to redeeme; wheras I confessed at the beginning, that it signi­fied to destroy, redeeme, breake in peeces, breake asun­der, but neuer to cease to doe, or breake off a worke, as their translation runneth.

Well, if the word doth import, to breake in peeces, [Page 32] and we haue, to breake off, then me thinkes the differēce seemes but small. This was that he spake: but he sayd not, as M. Walker outfacingly belyeth him, that M. Smith had fayled much in his pr [...]ofe: he was of a more mild, and generous disposition, thē euer to let fall any such speach.

The lesse the difference may seeme, the more pernicious if it iarre, as this doth, frō the harmony of Fayth: for the word in his natiue sēse betokneth such a breaking, as hateth, destroyeth, & quite extin­guisheth the thing it crusheth, or breaketh a sun­der: So it signifieth in those very places which M Walker alleadgeth, Breake off the golden ear [...]ngs &c. Exod. 3 [...]. v. 2. to wit, with abolishing, with destroying them to that, & changing them to another vse. And much more in Genesis, where it is not, as he most fraudu­lently corrupteth it, Thou shalt breake off his yoke &c. Genes. 27. v. 40. but as the Protestant Translatiō readeth, Thou shalt breake his yoke from off thy neck. So that Peru [...], breake, is referred to the Yoke, as before to the Earings; ( off) is added by phrase of speach▪ Likewise the very tearme of yoke declareth how he was to breake it off as a combersome, and hatefull burden, with dislike and detestation, to be eased of the same. No such manner of speach is vsuall in the place we handle, and the case it selfe is far otherwise. For a ma may breake off, or interrupt a busines for a tyme, which he liketh, approoueth, and meaneth after, when opportunity serueth, to prosecute, and accom­plish. [Page 33] Therfore though your English Coppy bea­reth the sound of a small corruption, yet the trea­chery is great, and deprauation most viperous; be­cause it taketh away all reference to the demoli­tion, redemption, and expiation of sinnes, by satis­factory workes of Pennance, and Almes-deedes; which the true meaning of the word enforceth, and the Holy Ghost therby intended. To conclude, if the Hebrew word had bin doubtfull, as it is not; then the Originalls of Greeke, and Latine, might haue directed you, without seeking a new sense, and faygned signification of your owne.

Not so, for we haue nothing to doe with the Greeke, and Latin text, they are both corrupted.

And is not the Hebrew also corrupted, espe­cially of late, since the addition of the pricks? This was the true occasion of excepting against the He­brew text; no other was the exception, no other my VValk. in his printed Summe. pag. 27. base estimation or reiection of it: Though M. Walker hath so bad a conscience, as to misreport them all, and so virulent a pen, as vpon his owne lying re­port, to accuse me, of vanity, inconstancy, malice, and wickednes, ioyned with wi [...]full ignorance. But these are mild, and modest wordes in respect of other most opprobrious speaches, and spitefull tearmes, which elswhere flow from the bitternes of his hart: to [Page 34] which I now answere once for all The disciple is not aboue his Maister, nor the Seruant aboue his Lord: If Matth. [...]0. v. 24. 25. they haue called the Good man of the howse Beelzebub, how much more them of his houshold? It is no dishonor for me to be reuiled with the seruants of his house, if it be no ignominie for M. Walker to be one of their Reuilers. Howbeit, as soone as he had dis­gorged those vnciuil tearmes, he peremptorily writeth.

It is the iudgment of all the best learned, both Iew­ish Rabbins and Christians, that the pricks, vowells, & Helias Le­uita in Praefat. Massorethi Rabbi Da­uid Kimki in Psal. 60. Galat. l. 1. c. 8. & vltimo. Genebrar. in suo Chronol. ad an 476 Lindan. de opt. gen. l. 1. cap. 6. Senensis l. 8. haer. 13. Arias Montanus in Praefa. ad Biblia. accents were from the beginning.

What? Of all the best learned? Little is your reading, or great is your forgetfulnes: for the best learned without exception say the contrary; as not only Helias Leuita, but Rabbi Dauid Kimki, whome Caluin, and Beza much commend; and diuers other Rabbins are of the same opinion, cited by Galatinus, who euidētly proueth this point out of their owne writings: with whome Genebrard, Lindan, Sixtus Senensis, Arias Montanus, and innumerable others accord: The wordes of Arias Montanus be these: The Grammarians striue about the antiquity, and first inuenters of these vowels, and pricks and the strife as yet remayneth in debate: Some referring this thing to the tyme, and industry of Esdras; others to the Schoole at [Page 35] Tiberiades famous [...]o [...] the resort and meeting of learned Viv [...] hoe habeat, illud om­nibus in constanti, certeue est, voca­lium, no­tarum in­uentio­nem con­sonanti­bus Hae­braicis minimè esse coe­quam. men: Howsoeuer thi [...]e, that is constant and certayne amongst all, the inuention o [...] the vowells, pricks, not to be of equall standing, and antiquity with the Hebrew Consonants. Lo then this is constant, and certayne amongst all.

But looke Deuteronomy c. 17. v. 18. and there it is plainly testifi [...]d, that there was a booke of the law called Mishne, which signified double, because it was the law written in the double forme, both with letters, and pricks.

You shew your selfe very ignorant, for Mishne This was his saying, though M. Wal­ker set­teth a false glos­se vpon it. Athanas▪in synop. Aug. q. 49. Theod. in Deu­trono. q. 1. Cornesius de Lapid [...] sup. Deut. in pro [...]m. doth not signifie in that place the Originall Scri­ptures, nor holy Scriptures at all: but the deposition or repetition of the Original, and prime law con­teyned in Exodus, Leuiticus, and N [...]meri, which are only part of the Scripture called Deuteronomium, as S. Athanasius, S. Augustine, and Theodoretus witnes. Now to say, that the whole Scripture is called by the name of Mishne, is as absurd, as to mantayne that the whole Scripture is called Deuteronomy. And out of that bare word Mishne to inferre, the Scri­ptures to haue beene primarily writtē with pricks, is most ridiculous, because euen in the place you cite, it is as much distinguished from the first and primary Scripture, as a coppy from the original, a [Page 36] patterne from the Prototypon, and is expounded ioyned with Thorah, a doubled, or second Law.

You contradict you [...] selfe, in affirming that Mishne signifieth the doubled law, which is the Scripture, and yet not the originall Scripture.

No good Sir, It is no more a contradiction to deny Mishne Thorah, or Deuteronomy to import the Scripture indeterminately, and yet to graunt it to be a part of the Scripture; then to deny you to be a true Minister of Christ, and yet to graunt you to be a Minister: for Mickra indeed is the common word, by which the Iewes expresse the Scripture.

I answere, that the Scripture hath diuers names, it is called Thorah, Chethab, Mickra, and Mishne.

Are not you ashamed, after the labour of so many months study to write so impertinently; for Thorah signifieth only part of the Scripture, or Pen­tateuch, Chethab any writing; as Esther. 8. v. 8. the kings letter is called Chethab: & as for Mishne, you alledge no text, or testimony to prooue that it be­tokeneth the Scripture. But see Pagnine, and you shal find that the word neuer expresseth any Scri­pture [Page 37] at all, but with the word Thorah, as Mishne Thorah, it betokeneth a repetition, or second law, as Deutero. 17. 18. Iosue 8. 20. But where Thorah is left out, it signifieth only the second. Looke Esther 10. 3. 4. Reg. 22. v. 14. ibid. c. 23. v. 4. and so M. Walker bewrayeth his little skill in Rabbins, who though he flourisheth in his writing with the mu­ster of some of theyr names, and Commentaries; yet he could not remember at the meeting, to cite any one of their authorities.

Thus you see M. Walker, how you wil be al­wayes flinching from the matter, though you be still beaten backe to your owne shame and confu­sion. To returne therfore from whence we are di­gressed. If the Greek, and Latin be adulterated in the former place of Daniel, the Hebrew is alike corrupted; because Peruc properly signifieth to re­deeme, as [...] in Greeke, Redime doth in Latin (hence Peric signifieth a Redeemer, Purkan Redem­ption) and so Theodotio, so Vatablus, so S. Ierome, and so all others expresse the word: wherfore either all texts are falsified, or all are true. If all be false, the Hebrew is tainted with corruption, as wel as the Greeke and Latin; if all true, your translation is inexcusable, in discording frō the truth of all ori­ginalls, from the version of all the Auncients.

These Disputations about the Hebrew text, are [Page 38] aboue our capacity, an [...] filter for the Schooles. I pray you descend to some more profitable matter, and easier for our vnderstanding.

Vpon this motion only, I ceased to rip vp Some other cor­ruptions brieflie vrged. 1. Cor. 2. I pray you brethren keepe my Ordinan­ces. The like [...]. Thessa. 2. Math. 15. VVhy do you trans­gresse the Commaū ­dements of God, by your Tra­ditions? [...]. Luc. 20. & [...]. but 2. Thessal. 1. they tran­slate it truely. Psal. 118. v. 112. ad Rom. 5. v. 17. 18. 21. the residue of Protestant corruptions, but not be­cause neyther I, nor my Companion had any more to say, as M. Walker according to his fashion per­uersly relateth, for infinite other deprauations of theirs are obuious, and apparent; as the fraudu­lency they vse in translating one, and the same Greeke word [...], Traditio: For in such textes as mention good and holsome Traditions, they in lieu of Traditions, read Ordinances: where the Scri­pture speaketh of such as be naughty, or friuolous, they in hatred of our Apostolicall Traditions, care­fully set downe the right word Traditions. The same deceit they practise in expressing the Hebrew word Sheol, Hell; For where it may import a third place besides Heauen, & Hell, they warily turne it into Graue, Gen. 37. v. 35. Osee 13. v. 14. but where it cannot be meant of any other then of the dungeon of the damned, there they rightly tran­slate it; as in the 15. of the Prouerbes v. 24. Hel be­neath. I might haue vrged how they iuggle with the word worthy, or make worthy, against the merit of workes; how they change Iustifications into Sta­tutes, Iustice into Righteousnes, against inherent Iu­stice; how they sometyme forsake the Hebrew and [Page 39] retire to the Greeke, as in the 9 of Prouerbes v. 2. Wisdome hath mingled her wine: because the Hebrew word Masecha wholy fauoureth the ancient min­gling of water and wine in the Chalice, which the Fathers vrge as necessary, and Protestants vtterly neglect, they fly to the ambiguity of the Greeke word [...], which may signify to powre out, as well as to mingle: & so did they alwayes read before his Maiesties Correction. Otherwhiles they leaue the Greeke, and haue recourse to the Latin, as Act. 13. though the Greeke be [...], they sacrifi­cing Act. 13. v. 2. to our Lord, as Erasmus translateth it, yet your translation still runneth according to the Latine they ministring vnto our Lord, because you cannot abide that word, although written by God, which doth any way relish of the Sacrifice of the Masse. These and a thousand such of your guilefull slei­ghts I might haue alleadged; howbeit to condes­cend to the reasonable motion of Syr Edward Har­wood and the rest, I willingly omitted them, and re­turned to prooue the second part of my first Ante­cedent which you denied.

The Word of God preached in the Church of England is corrupted with errours, and the men that deliuer, it are subiect to errours.

The former part is already prooued by the manifest adulterations of your Bible before men­tioned.

That your men also are subiect to errour, I conuince by the confessiō of M. Reynoldes, M. Whi­taker, Reynolds in his 2. Conclus. VVhita­ker. con­tro, [...]. and the most learned Protestantes of our tyme; who expresly write, that the true Church, which they suppose theirs to be, may erre, and all her Pastours in some points of fayth, euen necessa­ry to saluation.

Therfore your men, your Preachers, and Pa­stours are subiect to errour.

I graunt, that the true Church may erre for a tyme insome one fundamentall point necessary to saluation; & this I affirme of the Protestant Church, of our Church of England: Ground what you can vpon this.

Though some of the Catholikes heerevpon cryed out, We haue inough, inough, let vs leaue of our dispute, yet to giue more full satisfaction to the Protestāt Gentlemen, who perceaued not so soone the absurdity of this Paradoxe, or folly of M. VVal­ker, in granting that very part of my Antecedent which before he denyed, I proceeded a little fur­ther, and argued thus against him.

If your Church may erre in one point necessa­ry to saluation, it may as well erre in another, and so cā propose nothing vndoubtedly to be belieued, [Page 41] as an article of fayth. Which inference though M. VValker denyed, and with many cauillations labou­red to diuert, yet it euidently followeth, as I thus declare.

That Church which hath not sufficient autho­rity to persuade all the mysteries of fayth she proposeth, to be infallibly true, can propose nothing vndoubtedly to be belieued as an ar­ticle of fayth.

But your Church which may erre now in one point, now in another, at least for a tyme, hath not sufficient authority to persuade all the mysteries of fayth she proposeth to be in­fallibly true.

Therefore, your Church can propose nothing vndoubtedly to be belieued, as an article of fayth.

For seeing the Articles in which your Church may erre, are not specified by God, nor knowne to your followers; they may iustly feare, and suspect least those she now proposeth, be some of them, in which she may erre: But with feare and suspition no fayth can stand, nothing can she propose which ought vndoubtedly to be belieued, as S. Au­gustine in the like case most excellently discourseth, saying: How can he be belieued who thinketh he may Aug. lib. de menda­cio cap. 8. sometyme tell a lye; for perchance he then lyeth, when he c [...]mmaūdeth vs to beleeue him. So you that hold, your Church may sometyme erre, haue cause to doubt, least then perchance she erreth, when she com­maundeth [Page 42] you to follow her doctrine. If cause to doubt, no cause to obey, no cause to credit her. Nay it implyeth cōtradictiō we should with diuine fayth giue credit vnto her: For by fayth we are as­sured, Fayth & doubtful­nes cānot comply togeather of one & the same thing. that the thing she teacheth cannot possibly be otherwise, then we belieue: By doubtfulnes, or suspicion we mistrust they may be otherwise: Els why do we doubt? Why do we suspect? Therfore it is a manifest implicancy, and irreconciliable cō ­tradiction, that fayth and doubtfulnes should cō ­sist togeather; that we should be vndoubtedly per­suaded of the truth proposed, yet stagger and mis­doubt of the truth therof; as you haue iust cause to do, as long as you maintayne, that your Church may deceaue you.

Besides, to prooue out of the former Paradoxe, that your Church is not the true Church, I fra­med these Syllogismes.

That Church which may erre for a tyme, in a fū ­damentall point, necessary to saluation, hath no certainty for that tyme.

Yours is such.

Ergo, it is no true Church. Againe.

That Church which may erre for a tyme, in a fū ­damentall point, necessary to saluation, hath not sufficient meanes of saluation, for that tyme.

Yours is such.

Ergo, it is no true Church.

These arguments are sophisticall, and faulty, because they haue foure termes. With the same Censure he discarded other Syllogismes as crazy & imperfect, he denied to answere any Enthymeme: and such was his feare of hazarding both cause and credit, as he reiected also a true, and perfect Syllogisme in moode, in figure, as the Roman Catholike, whome he mentioned, maintayned against him. Though he did not renounce his saluatiō if it were not true, which M. Walker after his wonted fashion most iniuriously reporteth of him.

Your cause lyeth a bleeding, whē you thus begin to wrangle about Syllogismes; yet these two which I haue heere repeated, with the third which imme­diatly followeth in your Summe, are such as no Scholler would reprehend. For the conclusion which seems to make the Syllogisme, & consists of foure termes, supposeth another Syllogisme vertu­ally inuolued, which to auoid tediousnes I did not expresse: After which manner all Enthymenes are iustified, and allowed, notwithstanding one of the premisses be suppressed, and the conclusion be immediatly inferred. A thing very vsuall amōg the learned in all Vniuersities, especially when the Disputant is either straitned with shortnes of tyme, or the Auditory ouer-wearied, as now it was, [Page 44] with the combersome delay of 4. long houres, by reason of your manifold digressiōs, idle repetitiōs, impertinent discourses, ouer-tedious writings &c. But you who neuer appeared in any such schooles, neuer peeped out of Aristotles Parua's, no mer­uaile [...] ▪ [...]. parua. though you could not apprehend that kind of arguing. I pardon your ignorance, I beare with your dulnes, & passe to those Syllogismes in moode and figure, which you could not gainsay.

That Church which hath not the whole, entire, and infallible fayth, hath not meanes suffi­cient to saluation.

But that Church which may erre for a tyme, in a fundamētall point, hath not the whole, en­tire, and infallible fayth.

Therfore, it hath not meanes sufficient to salua­tion.

I deny your Minor, and do put you to prooue, that the Church which may erre, hath not the whole and in­fallible fayth.

If it do erre, it hath not whole & entire fayth; if it may erre it hath not infallible fayth: as thus I prooue.

That Church which is subiect to errour, in a fū ­damentall point, hath not the whole and in­fallible fayth. [Page 45] But that Church, which may erre in such a point, is subiect to errour.

Therfore, it hath not whole, and infallible fayth.

I must tell you▪ that your Minor proposition is false. For a Church may be so farre subiect to errour, that it may haue a possibility to erre, yet not be void of the whole and infallible fayth. It is one thing to be subiect to er­rour, and another to erre actually: We hold, that our Church may erre, but doe not thinke that it doth erre in any fundamentall point.

If it may erre, if it hath a possibility to erre, it is as bad as if it did erre, in respect of the certainty which fayth requireth: for thus I argue.

That Church which is fallible in a fundamental M. Wal­ker was affrayd this last argumēt of mine, should come to light, the­refore he purposely suppres­seth it in his Sūme point of fayth, is not also infallible in the whole and entire fayth.

But your Church which is subiect to errour, which hath a possibility to erre, in a funda­mentall point of fayth, is fallible.

Therfore, it is not also infallible in the whole & entire fayth: Vnlesse it may be in one and the same thing both fallible, and infallible, sub­iect to errour, and not subiect, which is im­possible.

M [...]revpon I concluded, that sith the Protestāt Church is fallible in fayth, it hath not any true, & [Page 46] supernaturall fayth: if it hath no true fayth, it cā ­not be a true Church, which were the two things I was engaged to prooue: and so I haue fully dis­charged my taske, to the satisfaction I hope of all that be present. For M. Walker being caught in this net of contradiction, had no meanes to escape, vnles, as S. Augustine writeth of Maximin [...]s the Arrian Bishop, By talking much, and nothing to the Aug. cōt. Maxim. lib. 2. purpose, he might seeme at lest to answere, who was not able to hold his peace. Therfore some of his compa­nions intreated he might argue a while, to see whether he could haue better fortune in impug­ning our Church, thē he had in defending theirs. But before I relate the disputation he begā, I think it expedient for the instruction of such as are better conuersant in Diuinity, to vnfold certayne Theo­logicall Principles, or Articles of fayth, whereby the force of my former argument, the truth of our doctrine, the folly of protestancy, and the enor­mity of M. Walkers answere, may more apparent­ly be discouered.

The first Principle is, that Fidei non potest sub­ess [...] falsum, fayth cannot be subiect to any falsity: Faith Three re­markable principles [...]. is infallible, sith it hath for its former obiect the prime Verity, or authority of God; it relieth vpon his infinite Knowledge, which cannot be deceiued in vnderstanding any thing, and vpon his infinite Veracity which will not beguile vs in testifying an vntruth: It is impossible for God to lye, we haue a most Ad Heb. [...]. v. 18. strong comfort. But as it is impossible for God to lye, [Page 47] impossible for him to witnes that which may be false: So it is impossible for the habit of Fayth to incline, or for the act of Fayth to assent to that which is lyable to any falshood: As S. Thomas sin­gularly 8. Thom▪ 1. 2. q. 1. art. 3. & Scholast. 3. dist▪ 24. 25. well prooueth by these 3. Reasons. First, because nothing can belong to the habit or act of fayth, except that which appertaineth to theyr for­mall obiect, and in such sort as it is instilled, con­ueyed, and drawne from thence: Euen as no co­lour can be seene, vnlesse it be garnished with the beames of light. But to prime Verity no falsity can belong, not only any actuall falshood, but not so much as any thing that hath a possibility to be fals; no more then any pronesse to euill can appertayne to soueraigne goodnes, or the least shadow of dark­nes to light inaccessable. Therfore Fayth, which hath prime Verity for her obiect, must not only be free from actuall errour, but from all lyablenes therunto, or possibility of erring. Secondly, euery act, euery habit, is necessarily lincked with equall proportion of certainty, or assurance, with the cer­tainty of the obiect, of which it borroweth its dig­nity, nature, and forme: Wherfore as the prime Verity, and testimony of God; so the habit, and act of Fayth, are both infallible. Thirdly, Fayth is an intellectuall Vertue which doth perfect, & eno­ble the faculty of our Vnderstanding, which can­not receaue the dye of perfection from any other thing then that which is true, because that only, as all Philosophers teach, is her proper, & peculiar [Page 48] obiect. Hence it is, that S. Paul describeth Fayth Ad Heb. 11. v. 1. Dionys▪ de diui. nom. cap. 7. Aug. lib. 13. de Tri­ [...]i [...]. cap. 1. [...]. not only to be the substāce, that is, the setled ground, the constant, and stabl [...] foundation (according to S. Dionysius) of our hope, but also, an argument of things not appearing; that is, a firme assent, a demonstratiō or Conuiction, as S. Augustine sayth, of our vnder­standing, which cannot be obnoxious to any dan­ger of falsity.

The second Principle presupposeth, that Faith The 2▪ Principle. must not only be infallible, but whole also, and en­tire: Witnes S. Athanasius in the beginning of his Creed, Whosoeuer doth not beleiue the Catholike faith wholy & i [...]uiolably, he shall vndoubtedly perish: And S. Leo: A great safeguard is faith entire, true faith, in Leo. ser. 4. in solem. Natiu. Ephes. 4. Mar. 16. v. 16. which nothing can be added by any, nothing de [...]racted; because vnlesse fayth be one, it is no fayth, the Apostle auerring, One Lord, One fayth. To which purpose our Sauiour himself auoucheth: He that beleiueth not, shall be condemned: that is; he that beleiueth not euery Article, expresly or implicitely, he that beleiueth not the whole summe of Christian doctrine, shall incurre the forfaiture of his saluation. For as all thinges are to be obserued whatsoeuer Christ comman­ded; Math. 28. v. 20. so all thinges to be beleiued whatsoeuer he taught: and in such manner, that albeit the myste­ries in themselues are some of lesse, some of grea­ter moment, some necessary, some contingent; yet as they are testified, & reuealed by God, they ought all with equall certaintie, with the same suretie to be credited & imbraced; because God in all things [Page 49] little or great, necessarie or contingent, is equally great, & of infallible credit: Wherby euery Article is so fast riuetted, and conioyned one with the other, in such vniforme & due proportion, as they make, sayth S. Gregory Nazianzen, A Chayne truly Greg. ora. 37. Amb. ad [...]. 9. Lucae l. 6: golden, and soueraigne. From which, if your withdraw but one, you withdraw your saluation, as S. Ambrose writeth.

The third principle is, that the ordinary meanes The 3. principle. of atteyning the whole and infallible fayth, is from the mouth of the Church, from the lipps of her Rom. 5. v. 17. Priests, because fayth is by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ: to wit, by the word expounded and preached vnto vs, by his lawfull Pastours: for it Ibid. v. 14. goeth immediatly before, How shall they heare with­out à Preacher, and how shall they preach vnlesse they be sent? Whervpon it necessarily ensueth, that if they be sent from God to teach his heauenly doctrine, if we be bound to beleiue vpon their testification and preaching, their preaching must be certaine, their testification vndeceiuable, that we may secu­rely 1. Thes. 2. v. 2 [...] receyue the word they deliuer; not as the word of men, but as it is indeed the word of God, who by their mouthes speaketh, by their testimony sealeth, and witnesseth it vnto vs; especially seeing he com­mandeth vs to heare them as himself, to obey them as Luc. 10. his Vicegerents, to beleiue them vnder penaltie of damnation; seing he giueth them the Holy Ghost, Ioh. 16 & 17. Ephes. 4. to teach them all truth, to sanctifie them in veritie, that we be not carryed about with any winde of doctrine. [Page 50] Therefore as God cannot immediatly by himself, or mediatly by any other, deliuer that which may be doubtfull or vncertaine; so much lesse by the mouth of those his witnesses, his iudges, his inter­preters, In the 3. Part of my An▪ tid. chap. [...]. and 6. by whome he vttereth the Oracles of truth: as I might more fullie demonstrate, if I had not al­ready elswhere vncontrollably euicted and proued the same Yea the very nature and condition of fayth, perforce requireth it; for that being an assent of our vnderstanding to thinges not appearing, that is, not appearing true through the euidence of truth in themselues, or through the light of humane rea­son, but only by this Authority of God, who testi­fieth them not immediatly, but by the meanes of his Church, by the true Pastors, and expounders of his word; if they might vary, or fluctuate in the rules they follow of expounding Scripture, their expositions were wauering, their preaching vn­cōstant, they could neither assuredly teach, nor we vndoubtedly giue credit to that which they pro­pose, VVhit. cont. 2. q. 4. pag. 221. as to constant, stable, and immoueable truth. For it is a warrantable position of M. Whitakers; Such as the meanes be, such of necessitie must be the interpretation it selfe: But the meanes of interpreting obscur [...] places are vncertaine▪ doubtfull, and ambiguous: Then it cannot possibly be, but that the interpretation it self is vncertaine; if vncertaine, then may it be false. But if it may be false, as M. Walker acknowledgeth the interpretation of the Protestants Church may be, it ouerthroweth the ground of fayth, the foun­dation [Page 51] of Religion. For what els can be, or any of his fellowes assig [...]e, on which they stay o [...] an [...]ker the certaintie of diuine beleife? Their particuler pa­stor? Their priuate spirit? But if their Pastours in generall may trip and slumble; how much more, their particular? If the publicke spirit of their Church be errable, how deceiuable is their priuate? Againe, the priuate spirit is hidden, it cannot be discouered and opened to others, and yet it is open it self to a thousand illusions. Therefore it must be tryed by some more known, and certaine spirit: What then, do you build vpō the voice of God that speaketh in the Scripture? but that voyce is no other then the bare word or out ward letter of Holy writ; of that ariseth our strife and debate. That also spea­keth most errably to you, as your owne contentions and infinite hersies sprung from thence, beare eui­dent witnes. If your reply, that it speaketh inerra­bly to such a read, and heare it with faith, and hu­militie as they ought; you send me still a rouing in the wildernes of vncertaintie; for how shall I know who they be, that obserue those conditions as they ought? And what is this, as they ought, after your Puritanicall, or Caluinian manner?

Lastly let it be (for this wilbe) your last, and poo­rest refuge, that the true Church of IESVS Christ hath alwayes such well known to him; what is this to you, if you know them not? What if we dis­proue, as we plainly doe, your Church to be his? Where are your humble Readers? your faith­full [Page 52] interpreters? Or to yield you the vttermost your can aske, though most impudently begged at our hands; let there be such Readers, such Inter­preters among you; eyther they alwayes infallibly obserue the conditions specified, interpreting still a right, and then your Church by their direction, contrarie to your Tenent, can neuer erre: Or they fallibly obserue them, and so your Church may run astray, it cannot be the pillar of faith, the storehouse of truth, the voyce, or trumpet of supernaturall beleife; as my last two Syllogismes printed by M. Walker vndeniably conclude: which as long as they shall remaine registred in his Pamphlet, so long shall it beare the record of his owne disgrace; so long shall it proclayme the victorie of our Catho­like cause; so long shall the Protestant Church lie panting in the dust, without life, without strength, without vitall breath? Now let vs behold what new life M. Walker can breath into it, to reuiue This ar­gument crosseth it selfe in termes, for if the Church erred in a funda­mentall poynt, it was not true; if true, it erred not. it againe? Marry, that a true Christian Church may erre for a tyme, in some one fundamentall poynt, necessarie to saluation, he disputeth thus.

That which the auncient Apostolicall Church might doe, other succeeding Churches may doe, with the same successe.

But the Apostolicall Church might erre, and did erre in a maine poynt, and yet haue a true faith, and was a true Church.

Ergo, Other Churches also.

I deny the Minor. The Apostolical Church did not erre in a maine point of Fayth.

The act of Christs Resurrection from the dead taught in Scripture, is a fundamentall point of Fayth. The Apostoli­call church did erre in it. Ergo &c.

I distinguish the Minor. The Apostles erred, or rather were ignorant of the act of Christes Re­surrection, as a matter of fact, I graunt the Mi­nor; as an Article of faith, I deny it: for it was indeed a diuine verity, a true matter of fact at that tyme, yet no article of faith.

Behold Gentlemen he denyeth the Resurrection to be an Article of faith.

You wilfully abuse him; he denyeth it not ab­solutly, but only for that tyme, because it was not then sufficiently promulgated.

Reach me the Bible, I will shew the contrary in Io. 20. v. 9. expresse words of Scripture. So opening the booke he read, how some of the Apostles knew not the Scri­ptures, that he must rise from the dead: how our Sa­uiour Mar. 16. v. 14. appeared to the eleauen Apostles, and vp­brayded their incredulity and hardnes of hart▪ because they belieued not them who had seene him after he was risen.

At this Syr William Harington houlding vp his handes, sayd: Oh, I protest I neuer heard any poynt so playnely prooued!

Proued? he hath proued nothing. For I graunt the Apostles were slow in belieuing, dull in vnder­standing the resurrection of Christ; but I say, it was not then an article of fayth, which they were obli­ged expressely to belieue, because it was not so clearely promulgated, and proued vnto them, as to bynd them vnder the payne of Heresy, or note of Infidelity, at that tyme to imbrace.

Say you soe? Was it not expressely reuealed in Scripture? sufficiently promulgated by Christ himself?

I acknowledge the reuelation of scripture, the promulgation of Christ sufficient in themselues; yet not in respect of the Apostles capacity; for they were yet rude and weake of vnderstanding, they had not as yet that inward illustration and light of the holy Ghost, those outward motiues, and argu­ments of credibility, which did binde them to giue infallible assent to so deep a mystery. They assen­ted and belieued, that all was true which Christ sayd, all true which the Scriptures reuealed concer­ning his Resurrection; yet they knew not whether the sense and meaning of those passages were to be taken truely or enigmatically, properly or figu­ratiuely. Of this only were they ignorant; and this [Page 55] ignorance proceeded from their imbecillity and weakenesse, and not from the insufficiency of holy Scripture.

The Gentleman satisfied with this, & M. Walker M. Wal­ker silen­ced with the first distinctiō made a­gainst him. grauelled with the former answere, his reasoning was at an end: howbeit his brawling would haue no end, for the foresayd distinction held him at such a bay, as notwithstanding he bragged much of his dexterity in disputing, yet with all his cun­ning Sophistry he could not so much as frame one argument, one Syllogisme, or Enthimeme against it. But being in a monstrous rage, because his pryde could not brooke such a fowle ouerthrowe, I thought good to giue way to his chafing fit, and so departed with these very wordes: VVell, well; I perceiue my distinction hath choked your argument, you are not able to proceed. Now, after that I arose and walked hard by, the other Priest that assisted me ex­plicating the answere that I had giuen, sayd.

It is not much to be meruailed, that the Apo­stles at the first conceaued not aright the Resurre­ction of Christ: for the Apostolicall Church was then in her infancy; it was newly raysed, not wholy finished; begun, but not perfected; The Euangeli­call law was deliuered, yet not fully established.

And can this vndergoe the censure of any other doctrine, then sound and orthodoxall? Or could M. Walker iustly vaunt of any allegation he brought [Page 56] against M. Smith? Then read and detest the arro­gant style of an hereticall Impostor, who blusheth not to print, after his confusion, these flourishing wordes.

M. Smith being put to silence with those proofes, Loe the vanitie of a van­quished minister. the other Priest to make vs this breach, fled to another shift, and denyed the Apostles to haue byn a Church at that tyme, because the Holy Ghost was not yet come downe, nor the Euangelicall law reuealed.

If you were not already returned in open Court for a willfull lyar, forger, false Prophet, and Priest of Baal, your wordes might beare some shew of credit: but in so much as you are notoriously defamed for such an one, I onely intreat the Rea­der to iudge, whether I were silenced, or you; whe­ther my Companion fled to another shift, or defen­ded the answere which I gaue: Whether you haue not writhed his wordes to a faulty strayne, of pur­pose to reprooue them. For he denyed not the Apo­stles to haue byn at that tyme a Church, nor that the Euangelicall law was reuealed; but that it was not promulgated; that the Church was not yet per­fect, or law cōplete. For how could it be then fully cōplete, when it wanted diuers guiftes and endow­ments, necessary to the entyre complement and perfection therof? When it wanted the spirituall [Page 57] comfort, and inward Vnction of the Holy Ghost? When it wanted her outward promulgation essen­tially 8. Thom. [...]. [...]. q. 90. art. 4. Luc. cap. 14. v. 48. required to the establishmēt of a law? When it wanted the guift of tongues, most requisit for the conuersion of all Nations? When it wāted that vigour, or strength of verity, of which our Sauiour sayd: Tarry in the Citty till you be endued with power from high? How then M. Walker, how could your conscience serue you to carpe, or reprehend that saying of his, strengthned and supported by such warrantable proofes? To peruert and disorder the whole frame and methode of your owne disputa­tion? How could it serue you, 1. To charge me Are not these Mi­nistera wicked children? a lying seed▪ with tearming the Apostles ignorance or hardnesse of hart, an errour of forgetfulnesse? 2. To faygne me to say, that the Scriptures had not expressely re­uealed, how Christ should rise from the dead? 3. To faygne, that I intreated you to shew it me out of the Ghospell? 4. That I persisted still, how the Scriptures had not sufficiently reuealed it? All most iniurious and hideous lyes.

Notwithstāding these leasinges of his, or selfe­deuised fancyes, he mustreth a band of three seue­rall probations, and graceth the last with the ad­miratiō or solemne acclamation of one of his As­sistantes, howbeit it was vsed vpon another oc­casion. Such is euery where the iugling of that vain-glorious Sycophant: yet he dischargeth me from the labour of refuting his arguments, sith they are nothing else but engines raysed to batter [Page 58] the forts of his owne conceits: which neuertheles he suffereth not to fall to the ground without the sound of his fellowes applause, praysing himselfe for ouercomming himselfe, in such a skirmish, in which he is both the assayler, and the assayled, he the Maister, and he the maystered, idely conque­ring, and basely conquered both at once.

Moreouer he reprooueth me for making a strange distinction between a thing, as he tear­meth it, and it selfe: because I sayd, that the act of Christs Resurrection was a true matter of fact, a diuine Verity, yet no article of fayth, which the Apostles then were bound expresly to belieue. But is this so strange? I will giue you an instance of the like strange distinction. The validity of bap­tisme ministred by Heretiks was alwayes a diuine Verity, alwayes a truth sufficiently reuealed in ho­ly Scriptures, in the first of S. Iohn, and the third Ioan. 1. v. 33. Luc. 3. v. 10. of S. Luke, where it is written: It is he that bapti­zeth: Christ is the principall agent, whose action cannot be frustrated by the faultes of his instru­ment; yet this was not alwayes an article of fayth, vntill it was publickly defined by the Consistory of Gods Church; which caused Vincentius Lirynensis to free them from heresy who defended the contra­ry before; to condemne such as persisted in vphol­ding it after the definition; his wordes are these: O wonderfull change and alteration of thinges! The Vincent contra Propha. cap. 11. Fathers of one and selfe same opinions are adiudged Ca­tholiques, the followers Heretiques; the maysters are [Page 59] acquitted, the disciples condēned; the wryters of bookes shall be Sonnes of the kyngdome, the maintainers of the same shall be cast into hell▪

Finally M. Walker for his vpshot, relateth the commendation a Catholike gaue him of his noble conquest after he was thus discomfited. I reprint his words, which he for very shame disguiseth vn­der the cloke of a third person.

When the Priestes were very willing to make an end, and the Protestant Gentlemen seemed well satisfied, and made them ready to depart; One of the Roman Ca­tholiques calling M. Walker aside, began to collogue and flatter with him, telling him, that he was a good Oh the pride! Oh the folly of this man! Logician, a good Linguist, and well read, and that God had giuen him a sharp wit and ready tongue, and ther­fore no meruaile though he preuayled, and made a good cause seeme bad when he opposed it, and a bad cause seem good, when he defended it.

Fye, fie, M. Walker! Are you so greedy of a little vayn-glory as thus to blazon with your owne pen (for you penned the whole summe though you maske it vnder another vizard) the false lustre of your supposed talents? Of such as neuer were ac­knowledged by any of your Pew-fellowes in Cā ­bridge, much lesse extolled by the mouth of a Ca­tholike? For I enquired of the Gētlemā who cōfer­red with you, & he solemnly protesteth before God [Page 60] and man, and is ready, if need require, to confirme it with his Oath, yea and iuridically to diuulge it to all the word: First, that he neuer gaue you those high titles of commendation, which you set downe; Se­condly, that the Courtly complements he cast vpon you were meerely in iest by the figure of Ironia, as the Wise­dome of God iested at Adam after his fall, saying: Loe Adam is become as it were one of vs, knowing good Gen. 3. v. 22. and euill: yet such was your quick and subtile wit so worthy of admiration, as it conceiued that to be spoken in good earnest, which was vttered in de­rision, to laugh you to scorne.

By which, and by all the former passages, eue­ry indifferēt man may easily perceiue, 1. How poore a Religion Protestancy is, and how weake a Pa­trone heere she had, who could bring no better propps to sustaine it, then knauery, fraudulency, lyes, and falsifications. 2. How Thraso-lyke M. Walker boasteth of the Victory, and endeth the scene of his fabulous discourse with that triumphāt­sentence, Magna est veritas & praeualet; Great is▪ Esdr. 3. c. 4. v. 41. truth and it doth preuaile. For vnlesse salshood may be inthroned in the chaire of Truth, and Vanity possesse the seat of Verity; farre, too-too farre is he from preuayling, who hath ben conuicted, and notably disgraced with so many tergiuersa­tions, digressions, forgeryes, and grosse ab­surdityes; who hath byn driuen to such shame­full begging of the principall question; to grant that after, which before he had denyed; to deny [Page 61] that now, which he formerly granted; yea to a flat [...]ntrariety and playne contradiction▪ the greatest [...]yles a Scholler can take: He I say, who hath byn [...]ot only vanquished and defeated, but chased out [...]f the field at euery encounter. In which neuerthe­esse if he had stood, and vpheld his quarrell (as God forbid he should;) seeth he not what horrible crimes he had layd to the Apostles charge? What [...]famies on their flock? Seeth he not what a breach [...]e had made in Syon? What ruines in his owne Ierusalē? For by attaching the Apostolicall Church of erring in a fundamentall point, manifestly re­uealed in holy Scripture, and often intimated by the Sonne of God, he attacheth it of Infidelity, he enditeth it of Heresie, and wholy depriueth it of the happy meanes of saluation. For the entire pro­fession of sauing truth (as Caluin, Field, and other Caluin. [...]. 4. Instit. c. 2. §. 1. Feild in 2. booke of the Church c. 3. & 4. prime Protestants confesse with vs) is necessary to the state of saluatiō, which the Apostolical Church wanted, when it erred, according to him, in that essentiall article of Christs Resurrection; it wanted then the soueraigne meanes of attayning eternall blisse; and so could not be the spouse of Christ, the gate of life, the temple of God, or Church of his beloued sonne; without all-sauing truth, it is im­possible to be his sauing Church. The same is more strongly confirmed by the dotage it selfe. M. Walker very dotingly laboured to proue (or else pro­ued nothing for his purpose,) That the Apostolike Church erred in a fundamentall point necessary to [Page 62] saluation; For if it was necessary, the Church could not be saued without it; if it might be saued without it, it was not an article at that tyme neces­sary to be belieued.

Neyther doth he only bereaue that pure and primitiue flocke of the riches of blisse, of the inte­grity of fayth in that one he specified, but by the same argument, in all other points of belief. For as by one mortall sinne the Vertue of charity is wholy expelled, according to S. Iames, He that offendeth in Ia [...]. 2. v. 10. 1. Tim. 1. v. 20. one, is made guilty of all: so by one only Heresy, or act of Infidelity the habit of fayth is vtterly lost, which S. Paul teacheth, affirming, that Hymenaus and Alexander made ship wrack of their fayth, albeit they only denied one sole article, to wit, the fu­ture Resurrection of our flesh. Which the Fathers Aug. l. de har. [...]eron. [...]du. Lucif. c. [...]. VVhitak. cont. 2. q. [...]. c. 1 [...]. witnesse, when they auouch, that such as fall into Heresy, are degraded of the dignity and right of Christianity. Which D. Whitaker also approueth, saying: If any one fundamentall point of doctrine be remoued, the Church presently falleth. Wherupon it followeth, that the Apostolicall Church was pre­sently buried in her owne ruines; that the Apostles made ship wrack of their fayth; that they were no Chistians when they beleeued not the Resurre­ction of Christ, if then they were bound to receiue it as a fundamentall article of their beliefe. Nay it followeth hereon, that the whole fould of Christ (for it was wholy no doubt inwrapped in the A­postles errour) became (ô monstrous impiety and [Page 63] most hellish consequence!) became I say, a heard Note the blasphe­mles, which en­sue of M. Walkers argumēt: and the misery of Protestās who can­not make their false Church true, vn­lesse they make the true Church false. of Miscreants, a band of Infidells, a den of Apo­stataes. The chast and vndefiled spouse of Christ (I dread to think it) fell to be an Adulteresse; his pure Virhin, the harlot of Sathan. And because that which befell the Apostolicke Church may by M. Walkers owne Logick, befall in lyke manner vnto all other Churches; the Protestants Church, not only by meere possibility, but actually also may be stayned with Heresies, tainted with Apo­stasie, blinded with Infidelity, wholy reuolt and fall from Christ. And if once it may doe so, we cā at no tyme (as I haue already declared) be infalli­bly certain, that thē it doth not so; we may alwayes doubt, or feare at least, that now it doth so.

On the other side, because our Sauiour testi­fieth of his Church, that it cannot possibly be di­uorced from him, that it is an euerlasting Kingdome, Osee 2. Dan. 2. v. 44. Luc. 1. Matth. 16. 2. Corinth. 11. Cypr. tom. [...]. epist. 73. not possible to be ouercome, not by the gates of hell, that it is guarded by the Holy Ghost, neuer able to be misguided; that it is a pure Virgin, not able to be spotted with any disloyalty: The spouse of Christ can­not play the adulteresse, sayth S. Cyprian: Therfore the Protestantes Church, which may really be naught, may actually fall, and prostitute her selfe to some filthy or distoyall errour, can by no means be the true Spouse, the true Church, the true King­dome, or Campe of Christ; nor enioy the dow­ryes, possesse the treasures of his inerrable Truth.