SIr William Harington Knight, hauing a Kinsman of the Romish Catholike Religion, by much reasoning with him, and many perswasions had brought him to wauering, so that he stood in doubt which was the true religion, and desired to be sa­tisfied. The forenamed Priest Mr. Smith alias Dr. Norrice for the setling and hardening of him in the popish religion, told him that the Protestant Church of England vnto which he seemed to in­cline, had no faith, neither indeed was it any Church of Christ at all: and also challenged his kinsman Sir William Harrington to bring any Mini­ster of the English Church whatsoeuer into any conuenient place of meeting, and he would by disputation, and by inuincible arguments proue a­gainst him before their faces, and in their hearing, [Page] that English Protestants had neither Church nor faith. Sir William Harrington did take his offer, vpon condition that he would answer to such questions as the Diuine which he would bring should pro­pound against the Romish religion; it was agreed; the day and place appoynted. Whereupon Sir William requesting a reuerend Doctor of his ac­quaintance to take the charge vpon him; hee being to preach in his charge vpon a necessary occasion the very day which was appointed: sent him to Mr. Walker, whom he assured him to be a man rea­dy for such a purpose, And who at the first motion vpon a dayes warning embraced the offer, promi­sed to come the next day to Sir William, and to at­tend him to the place of meeting, And Sir William requesting him to name before hand some questi­ons opposite to the Romish religion which hee would dispute vpon against the Priests; he gaue him these three following. 1. That the present Church of Rome is the Whore of Babylon. 2. That the Pope is An­tichrist. 3. That the Popish doctrine of Peters being Bi­shop of Rome is a forged fable contrary to the Scriptures.

These positions Sir William Harrington sent to the Priest, that he might arme himselfe for the defence: The next day Mr. Walker came to Sir Williams lodg­ings to dinner, and accompanied him and Sir Ed­ward Harwood, with some other Gentlemen to a pri­uate house by the Thames side, where they found some Romish Catholike Gentlemen, and they said Smith with other Priests. Before they entred into disputation, Mr. Smith alias Norrice, called Master Walker a side, and desired that the disputation might [Page] be performed louingly and sweetly with all milde­nesse, and without bitter words or byting speeches. Mr. Walker answered, that he desired to byte and gall no aduersary but with sound reasons, which do most commonly cut to the quicke, such as defend errors: as for other speeches, he promised for his part to be milde or sharpe, according to the beha­uiour of his Aduersaries. And thus they proceed to a formall manner of disputation, the one sitting downe at the one end of a Table, the other at the o­ther end, and the auditors sitting along on both sides, and some standing about in a large vpper Par­lor, But first Mr. Walker desired a Bible▪ vnto which they might appeale, and by which testimonies of Scriptures; which both parties alleaged might bee tried; whereupon there were two Bibles brought, and agreed vpon; the one a vulgar Latine, which the Counsell of Trent, and the whole Romish Church holds to be most authenticall; the other an English Bible, for the standers by to looke vpon. Then Mr. Smith alias Norrice, begins first with an apologie for himselfe, telling the gentlemen that he had of late by reason of some bodily infirmity, beene forced to take Phisicke, and to vse a dyet drinke, and therefore if his memory should faile, or if paine in his head should force him to breake off abruptly, desired them to beare with him, and to haue him excused; By which he seemed wisely to prouide before hand for a lesse shamefull flight, if he found the fight too hot and sharpe for him to be endured. Mr. Walker on the other side desired, that they might goe to it hand to hand, and but one [Page] speake at once for auoiding of confusion; that the disputation might be in short syllogismes: and de­sired also that the Arguments & the answers might be writ downe, for preuenting all false relation and misreports afterward, and withall, did put it to the Aduersaries choyce, whether he would oppose or answer first? Mr. Smith desired, that hee might first dispute vpon his owne questions, and promised that afterwards he would answer Mr. Walker, disputing vpon his questions: It was agreed vpon; And thereupon he putting off his hat, and crossing his face and breast, began to speake to Mr. Walker as fol­loweth.

Sir, I haue here receiued three questions from you, which you haue taken vpon you to proue by Argument, I haue here written downe, and will relate them vnto you: First you say you will proue the Pope to be Antichrist: 2. The Church of Rome to be the whore of Baby­lon: 3. That St. Peter was not Bishop of Rome as we hold; These questions are such as are not fit to be na­med, much lesse to be disputed or answered; they are deli­uered in tearmes very vnseemely and vnmannerly: for what can be more vnfit or vnseemly then this, that you should call the holy Father the Pope Antichrist, and the Church of Rome the whore of Babylon now in these dayes, when it pleaseth the Kings Maiestie to giue the Pope that honour, as to send and sue to his holinesse for a dispensation for the marriage of thr Prince his sonne: I pray you therefore let vs haue no more of these questions, but let vs haue some other, or else propound them in other tearmes, as that the Church of Rome is [Page] not the true Church or the like: As you see I haue done, in that I haue vsed milder words in my questions: holding that you protestants in England, haue no Church nor faith.

Seeing it is your pleasure thus to speake at large in loose speech, and not in strict Syllogisme, I will answer you in your kinde. First, I maruell that you are not ashamed to slaunder the Kings Maiestie with honouring of the Pope, by suing to him for dispen­sation, which we all know he will neuer doe; be­cause he hath not onely said, that he is Antichrist, but also publikely in his learned writings proued him so to be, and the Romish Church to be the whore of Babylon. I warrant you our King will marry his Son and aske the Pope no leaue, if the other party will aduenture it as well as he. It is most intollerable, that you should so boldly slaunder his Maiestie.

Secondly, for the tearmes of my questions, which you call vnmannerly, they are the same which it pleaseth Gods spirit to vse in the holy Scriptures; and his holinesse hath in his wisedome been plea­sed to stile the Pope and Church of Rome by the same titles, as I shall quickly proue, if you will vn­dertake to answer me. And therefore you are too bold to taxe Gods spirit of vnmannerlinesse: But perhaps this is a shift of yours, to put off our dis­putation vpon these poynts which pay you home, with a cleanely excuse of vnmannerly tearmes: yet it shall not serue your turne; for the more vnseem­ly that the questions are, the more disgrace it will be to me, and the more hard taske to proue them: [Page] and to you it will be more credit and ease to defend the contrary, so that this is no excuse for you at all. Thirdly, in that you doe charge vs here at home so manifestly contrary to common sense, that we haue neither Church nor Faith, when as we beleeue and professe all holy truthes taught in the holy Scrip­tures, which by your selues cannot be denyed to be Gods infallible word. But I pray you let vs leaue all loose and idle discourses, and come to a strict forme of Disputation, writing downe the Argu­ments and answers which doe passe betweene vs. Your taske which you haue vndertaken is to proue, that we haue no Church nor Faith: let vs heare your arguments briefly.

Well, that we may come quickly and closely come home to the matter, let me aske you a question, and doe you an­swer me, that I may ground my Arguments vpon your owne words, and I shall quickly proue against you my assertion, and make the truth of it plainely appeare. First I aske whether the true Catholike Church be visible?

The true Catholike Church is not visible, nei­ther can it be seene with eyes of any mortall man on earth.

Marke Gentlemen, he will deny this Canon: he saith the Catholike Church is not visible, which I will proue to be against all reason.

Indeed if I should say that it were visible, consi­dering [Page] it as it now is, I should speake against all rea­son; For the greatest part of it being Saints in heauen are without the reach of mans eyes, and cannot be seene.

You doe but equiuocate of purpose to decline all Dispu­tation; you know that I meane, not the Church trium­phant in heauen, but the Catholike Church militant on earth.

Nay, rather doe you equiuocate or worse; for to say that the Catholike Church is militant on earth is as absurd, as to say that all mankinde, euen the whole vniuersall race of Adam are now liuing on earth, when reason and experience teach vs, that the greatest part are dead, and many also yet vn­borne: I hope you know that the word Catholike, signifies vniuersall: and therefore the Catholike Church is vniuersall company of the Elect and faithfull, and includes in it euery one whosoeuer hath beene, or is, or shall be hereafter a true belee­uing member of Christ, and a [...]l they cannot bee seene at once on earth, because they neuer were al­together on earth. The militant number of them on earth, are the least part of them.

You doe wrangle to auoyde D [...]sputation; I therefore tell you; that by the Catholi [...]e militant Church, I vnder­stand the true Church of Iesus Christ, which all true Chri­stians here on earth ought to heare and obey, as it is the pil­lar and ground of tru [...]h: now answer whether you hold that to be visible or inuisible?

I iudge of your meaning by your words, and therefore I cannot conceiue this Church which you doe speake of, to be the Catholike, that is the vniuersall Church: for euery true particular Church, in which euery true Christian doth loue, and whereof he is a member, is that which he ought to heare and to obey, because by reason of the faith­full and elect which are in it, it is the house of God, and the pillar and firmament of truth. Now euery such Church is partly visible, and partly inuisible.

How is it visible, and how is it inuisible?

Euery such true Church hath in it elect and faith­full men, professing outwardly in word, and practise true Christian religion, who doe belong to the Ca­tholike Church, and are true liuely members of Christ: It hath also some hypocrites and carnall professors, which doe also make an outward show and profession of christianity, but are not truely in­graffed into Christ, by vnion and communion of the Spirit, neither haue the true holy sauing Faith, and by consequent are not members of the true Catholike Church. Now the men who professe re­ligion in the Church, and are the members of it, if we consider them as they are men, and as they pra­ctise and performe outward duties of christians, as preaching and hearing of the word, administring and receiuing the Sacraments publike outward worship and such like, they are visible: But as for the election faith, spirituall, and in word graces and [Page] deuotion in the one sort, by which they are indeed true christians, & belong to the Catholike Church: and the hipocrisie and carnall corruption lurking inwardly in the other sort, by meanes whereof, they are seperated from communion with Christ in spi­rit, they are things inuisible, and to be discerned spi­ritually, not with bodily eyes. Thus euery true Church is partly inuisible, to wit, in respect of the spirituall graces, which make men true Christians indeed; and partly visible, to wit, in respect of the outward profession, common both to elect and re­probates, to faithfull men and hypocrites.

No sooner was the answer giuen but Mr. Smith as one full of anger, protested with vehemency of words, that now he saw indeed, there was neither Church nor Faith a­mong Protestants; they were all so contrary among them­selues, neuer agreeing together in any opinion: He affir­med to the standers by, that Doctor Whitakers, Doctor Reignolds, Mr. Perkins, and many other chiefe Prote­stants did euer grant, that the true Catholike Church was visible. Another Priest sitting by, scornefully repeated the name of Perkins, and spake of him as of a poore silly man, not worthy to be counted among the learned.

Mr Walker moued with the falshood of the one, and the scorne of the other, first answered the scor­ner, that none could count Mr. Perkins silly and vn­learned, but either out of ignorance or wilfull mal­lice: and that he knew it to be the fashion of popish Priests, outwardly to sleight & vilifie before the peo­ple, such as do most cut and gall them. To Mr. Smith [Page] he answered, that if he would grant that Protestants haue a true Church, and the true faith, as truely as that which he affirmed of Doctor Whitakers and the rest was false, he would desire no more for the victo­rie: Yea (saith hee) if you haue read Doctor Whita­kers, you know that he holds as I doe; and that you wilfully and falsely father on him things vntrue.

Mr. Smith enraged with this answer, protested what he had said was true, and the more to perswade the standers by, he added more specially, that Doctor Whitakers doth in his writings maintaine, that the whole essence of the true Church, consists onely in the true preaching of the word, and the right administration of the Sacraments which are things visible.

Sir I doe not loue to contend by oathes and pro­testations, but by proofes. I will here write downe your wordes (which he did, and read them in the hearing of all, and asked if hee had not truly writ­ten? and all assented he had: Then hee proceeded thus.) I doubt not sir, but you haue learned Logick, and doe knowe that the definition of a thing doth expresse the whole essence, and that what a man de­fines a thing to be, that he holds to be the essence of it: Tell me here doe you not grant this?

I doe.

Well then, it must be granted, that Doctor Whi­taker doth hold that to be the essence of the Church which he doth comprehend in the definition of the Church. Now his definition of the Church is [Page] Coelus electorum & fid [...]lum, A company of elect and faithfull men, and he proues against Bellarmine, that none can be seene with the eye to be members of the Catholike Church, because the elect onely faithfull and godly, belong to it, whose graces are inuisible, and not hypocrites and reprobates, as Bellarmine doth hold. Dare you deny this?

I am sure he holds as I said before, that the whole es­sence of the Church consists in true preaching of Gods word, and in administration of the Sacraments.

Because I will not spend time in contesting with you; let this be the issue before these Gentlemen: let vs send for Doctor Whitakers workes, and if I doe not shew that he doth proue against Bellarmine, that the Catholike Church is inuisible, and that this is a maine point largely disputed by him, and a maine controuersie betweene him and Bellarmine, let mee be branded with the marke of a wilfull lyer, impo­store and false prophet. But if I shew it presently before them all out of his owne writings, then shall you confesse your selfe a forger and falsifier, an im­postor, and a priest of Baal; The Gentlemen all confessed that this was faire play, and desired it might bee so. Whereupon Mr. Smith began to draw backe, and shewed himselfe vnwilling, and much affraid to hazard his credit so quickly, and would gladly haue left this point, and fallen into another, But Mr. Walker proceeded on this wise and said: Gentlemen it is true, that Doctor Whitakers maintaines, that the Word truly preached, and the [Page] Sacraments rightly administred, are the certaine and infallible notes and markes, by which euery true particular Church may be discerned to bee Christs true church: and you know that the markes of a thing differ from the essence and substance of it: as the signe hanging at the dore of a Tauerne, and shewing that house to be a Tauerne, differs from the Tauerne it selfe: and the habit and Cowle of a Monke or Frier, which is the marke of his order, differs from the Monke himselfe, and is not any part of his essence. I beseech you therefore take notice of the boldnesse and impudency of popish Priests, how they can snatch here and there a speech out of our learned mens writings, without any vn­derstanding of it, and thereby make show, as if they had throughly read those Authors; yea, and can in common talke, and in titles of their printed pam­phlets professe, that they haue confuted Whitakers, Reignolds, Field, Perkins, and many others, whose bookes they neuer durst reade throughly, neither haue the hardinesse to sift any of their maine argu­ments. I assure you, that as you see this which I say here verefied, so I finde it a common thing among them all.

Mr. Smith and all his company on his side were ve­ry vnwilling to insist any longer vpon this point, & ther­fore answered nothing; but presently proceeded to another question, and asked Mr. Walker Whether the whole militant Church on earth may erre?

I answer, that this question is captious and [Page] ambiguous, and cannot directly in one word nega­tiue or affirmatiue bee answered: my reasons are these; First, because the whole militant Church, if such a Church may be acknowledged, is nothing but the whole number of particular Churches mili­tant on earth; and in diuers points they doe differ among themselues: and it is impossible for any man to finde out the iudgement of them all in euery point, as it is impossible to gather them all at once into one place. Secondly, it may bee said both that it may erre, and also that it cannot erre in diuers re­spects and considerations, if wee consider it by it selfe alone, as it is militant, and according to the militancy and weaknesse of it (as I may so speake) we grant that it may erre, and in euery particular part of it, there may bee found some errors: but if we consider it according vnto the relation and de­pendance which it hath vpon the Triumphant Church, and the assistance which it hath from Christ, his Prophets and Apostles, vpon whose doctrine and Scriptures it doth wholly cast it selfe, and builds all the doctrines of faith,, so it cannot erre, for in so doing it doth follow infallible guides: euen as the Apostle saith of a man regenerate and borne of God, that he cannot sinne, 1 Ioh. 3. to wit, in the maine, against the maine precepts of the Gos­pell, Beleeue and Repent, for he cannot fall into im­penitency and infidelity, because the seede of God, euen his holy Spirit abides in him: But that he hath sinne, and doth lie if he saith he hath none, to wit, through infirmity and weakenesse of the flesh: So likewise it is truely said of the true Church, and [Page] euery part thereof, that as it builds onely on the Scriptures, and doth vrge no doctrine of faith of necessity to be beleeued, but such as the Scriptures teach: So it cannot erre no more then the Scrip­ture, for this is a work of infallible faith. But because all men liuing in the Church; haue as infirmities of life, so imperfections in iudgement, and some per­uersnesse in affections, and therefore may faile in conceiuing some doubtfull and obscure places of Scripture amisse, or in cleauing not so close to the word as they ought, or following their owne affecti­ons to much, as we see in all the writings of the Fa­thers, and in the most part of the generall Coun­cells, in this respect we truly say, that the Church militant may erre.

You doe what you can to keepe off, and not to come to the point; but I will bring you to it doe what you can if you will answer me this question. Whether the who [...]e militant Church of England may erre?

I answer to this as before, that it is a captious and ambiguous confused question, and that this mili­tant Church as the rest may erre and not erre, ac­cording to the former diuers respects and conside­rations.

Whether is the Church of England so tyed to the word of God, and such helps, that it cannot erre nor misinter­pret the Scriptures in fundamentall points of Faith?

I answer, that as in all other particular Churches [Page] so in the particular Churches of England, there is a double voice, one of the Church, as shee is the true Church of Christ, and that is both her voice com­mending the Scriptures, onely to bee beleeued as necessary for sauing knowledge and true faith, and also the voice of GOD plainely speaking in the Scriptures, in this respect she is so tyed that shee cannot erre. There is another voice which the Church vttereth not immediately from her selfe, by the Commission which Christ gaue vnto her; but by her fraile members, suppose a Synode and assem­bly of Pastors taking vpon them to determine things doubtfull out of obscure places of Scrip­ture, and to make them more plaine then the Scrip­tures doe vpon which they build; This voyce may erre, and by it the Church may be said after a sort to erre in some part, though not wholly, nor finally, nor obstinately: because if it bee a true Church, it will not absolutely and peremptorily determine that which the Scriptures leaue doubtfull: neither will it persist alwayes in the errors if they be deadly, but either the whole number, or at least some in the number of the Church will renounce it; and so the whole shall not erre finally. This is my answer; But because I would giue you some ground whereon to fasten, that we may not spend time in questions, but may come to disputation, which is the intent of our meeting; I will grant you thus much, that the Church of England may erre for a time, and after some manner in a point fundamentall or necessary to saluation. Ground what you can vpon this, and let vs haue some disputation by way of [Page] strict Arguments and Syllogismes.

I haue enough out of your owne confession to proue that you haue neither Church nor Faith. And I pray you Gentlemen to marke and take notice, he grants that the Protestant Church of England may erre in a fundamen­tall point, if in one, then as well in another, and so from one to another till it erre in all, and so haue no faith at all, and hauing no faith it is no Church. Thus you see I haue proued that Protestants haue neither church nor Faith: and therefore I beseech you all take heede of them, who by their owne confession haue forsaken the Catholicke Church and faith, and doe wilfull runne into all dam­nable errors and heresies, and lead men into destrustion. You see how plainely they are conuinced; and I appeale to you all, Iudge whether I haue not plainely proued that which I did vnder take, to wit, that they haue neither Church nor Faith, and so are in a most damnable estate.

To these words vttered, with great vehemency and action of the hands and whole body, Mr. Walker standing vp, and putting of his Hat made this re­ply: First (saith hee) though it was your motion, and my desire that I might talke mildly without bit­ter words: yet seeing hee first breakes out so vnreasonably, and goe about by bitter and re­proachfull words and gestures to beare downe the truth: I must craue leaue of these Gentlemen to an­swer you in your kinde, though it be very vnseemly that in my manner of answer, you may behold the vnseemlynesse of your disputing: and then with like words, voice, and gestures, he answered to this [Page] effect: First, where as you say that you haue proued, that which you did vndertake▪ you shew your selfe without wit or reason: for you are not able to bring one word of reason by way of argument, till I doe lay you a ground, as all here doe see; and therefore if you seeme to proue any thing, you must thanke me for it, who doe yeeld more then you can proue: Secondly, your argument is without all forme, or­der, or reason; for it doth not follow, that euery Church which may erre in one point, may erre in all points at once, and fall wholly away, because God hath promised, that the gates of Hell shall not pre­uaile against his Church so farre as to put it quite from the foundation, though it may Build stubble and straw vpon the foundation, by erring in some points for a time. Thirdly, though it bee not im­possible for the true Church to erre yea though it were granted that it might wholly fall away from all faith: yet it doth not there vpon follow that it doth so, and that now presently it hath no faith, neither is a Church at all: Thus Gentlemen you see how I haue proued this man by his owne speech to bee without wit, reason modesty or honesty, roauing without wit or reason, railing without modesty, and falsly charging vs against all shew of honesty: But I feare me that this kind of Frier-like preaching, is odious and distastfull to all iudicious beholders: I pray you let vs dispute orderly, and according to art: And if you be able to dispute Scholler-like, let vs haue one argument framed into a short Syllogisme.

I warrant you I can make Syllogismes to your small com­fort.

And I doubt not but I shall as easily answer them to your small ease.

Then he with much adoe vttered this Syllogisme, and caused it to be written downe. That Church which hath not the word of God truely preached, and infallibly deliuered vnto it, is not the true Church of Christ: But the Protestant Church is such, Ergo.

I distinguish vpon the Maior proposition: For if you meane the word truly preached, and infallibly deliuered in euery particular point, so that it can ne­uer erre any manner of way in any such point. I de­nie the Maior vpon example and warrant from the Apostles: and doe hold that a true Church may for a time haue the word not truly deliuered, and infal­libly in some point, and yet be a true Church: But if you vnderstand a totall erring in all points, and a preaching of the whole word vntruly: then is your Minor most false, for Protestant Churches doe not preach the whole word vntruly at any time. Now proue you which of your propositions you please: For in these senses which I haue named both are false.

The Maior is so manifest that it needs no proofe, nei­ther can be denyed, for how is it possible for any Church to be a true Church which hath not the word truly preached in all points.

It is to mee a manifest vntruth, and therefore proue [Page] it true if you can; if you cannot, then yeeld the cause, that is false.

I proue it thus. That Church which hath not the word of God truly preached, but falsely translated, is no true Church. Such is the Church of England. Ergo.

This is no proofe of that proposition which I denyed, and which you did vndertake to proue, and therefore you shew your selfe ignorant in disputing and doe commit that fallacy against the rules of Lo­gicke which wee call Ignorationem elenchi.

It is a true Syllogisme, and proues the maine matter in controuersie, to wit, that you haue no true Church.

But the thing which you were to proue, was that the Church which hath not Gods word truly prea­ched, and infallibly deliuered in euery point at all times, is not a true Church. This because you can­not tell how to proue as you did vndertake, there­fore you flee to another new Argument, to which also I doe answer, as I did to the former: First, that the Maior proposition is false: For a Church which hath the word of God falsely or erroneously trans­lated in some parts, and so not truely preached in e­uery part, may be a true Church. Secondly, if you meane falsely translated, and not truely preached of purpose and wilfully, then the Minor is false, for though the translation of the Church of England may faile and misse of the true meaning of diuers places, (as all the best translations, especially the [Page] vulgar Latine approued by the Romish Church doth,) yet it is not so erroneously translated of pur­pose, neither doe all the Preachers thereof build, certainly on such erronious and false translations, but many doe discerne them, and preach and teach the true oppositions; and the Church alloweth them so to doe, when they shew good reasons for their doings, from the circumstances of the Text.

But I will shew plainly by diuers Examples, that you haue diuers places of Scripture falsly translated in your translation of set purpose, and wilfully contrary to the words of the Hebrew Text, contrary also to the Greeke and Latine, receiued in all ages and Churches heertofore.

You threaten largely in wordes which are but winde; but indeede you can neuer performe that which you say. Let vs see if you bee able to shew a­ny part of our translation, wherein one word is falsely translated of purpose: I desire no more but to ioyne a Combat with you hand to hand about the Hebrew text, and about the truth of our translation, and the agreement of it with the Originall.

I shall quickly proue what I say, and what you require. First, I haue a plaine example, Malachi 2. 7. where your translators read the words thus, The Priests lippes should keepe knowledge, and they should seeke the Law at his mouth. First this translation is false, because it is contrary to the Hebrew text, wherein the words are Iishmeru they shall keepe, and Iebakshu they shall seek: and not, they should keepe, nor, they should seeke. [Page] Also it is contrary to the Greeke, wherein the words are, [...] and [...], and to the Latine translation of St. Hierome, which is Custodient, and requirent. Secondly, it teacheth heresie and false doctrine, namely; that Gods Priests, & they who sit in Moses Chayre, may erre, contrary to the words of Christ who commands his Disciples to heare all such as sit in Moses Chayre, because they shall not erre, but their lips shall preserue knowledge. Thirdly, it is thus corrupted of purpose, to gainsay the in­fallibility of the Pastors of the Church, who doe succeed in the Chayre of the Apostles, and to blinde the peoples eyes, that they may not see the certainty and infallibility of iudgement in the Priests and Pastors who sit in Mo­ses Chaire, & how they are bound to seek the Law at their mouth: but may follow any vpstart teachers which se­parate from the Catholicke Church. Thus you see Gentle­men all, how plainely I haue proued that the Church of England hath of purpose corrupted the Scriptures, and therefore is no true Church.

Indeed if that which you say were true, you did speake something to the purpose; but great words and protestations cannot make truth to be falshood, nor falshood truth, as for the Example which you cite out of our English translation. Mal. 2. 7. I deny it to be contrary to the Hebrew text: yea I will ea­sily proue both from the Hebrew words, which you haue here shewed in the Hebrew Interlinear Bible, and also from the whole scope, and all circumstan­ces of the place, that the English is the best transla­tion, & more perfect then either the Greek or Latine. First, though the Hebrew words Iishmeru & Iebakshu [Page] be of the Futuretense, yet this doth not proue: that they should be translated so in our tongue, because you cannot but know, if you haue any skill in the Hebrew tongue, that the future tense in Hebrewe, sometime simply, and sometime by meanes of Vau conuersiue signifies time, either perfectly or imper­fectly past; somtimes it stands for the Optatiue, Potentiall, and Subiunctiue moode; therefore our translation is not differēt, nor irregular from the He­brewe, which is the originall. Secondly, it was neuer the purpose of Gods spirit in that place, or by these words to teach, that the Lawe should alwayes bee taught truly and infallibly by the Priests and Pa­stors who succeede Moses, or the Apostles locally in the Church by a continued succession: for that is a falshood contrary to the experience of all ages: this very place confutes it most euidently; For the Priests vnto whome the Prophet here speaks in these places were Leuites, and succeeded 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. As it appeares in the next words immediately follow­ing: yea some of them had sacrificed to Idolls, as Io­sephus shewes in his History of those times, and ther­fore the Lord threatens to corrupt their seed by cutting off the male progeny, and to cast the dung of their Sacrifice in their faces: so that the Priesthood of Phineas should by a sister married into the Tribe of Iudath to one of Dauids line fall to Christ, who desended of her, and hee should take it away to himselfe for euer as is intimated in the 3. verse of the [Page] same Chapter. So then it is no heresie but Gods ho­ly truth, that Priests succeeding in the place and of­fice of Aaron and Moses may erre and haue erred: Moset his Chaire in which the Scribes and Phari­sies did sit, was the seat wherein they were wont to read the Law of Moses, and the expositions of the Prophets to the people, and therfore what they there did teach was true, and Christ commanded his Disciples to obey it: But in their owne glosses and traditions they erred damnably, & made void Gods Law, Math. 13. 4. 16. 12. and their Doctrine our Sauiour called soure leauen, and warned his Disciples to beware of it. Thirdly, they who translate the words thus: The Priests lippes shall keepe knowledge, and they shall seeke the Law at his mouch: Did neuer intend to shew thereby, that God did make here a promise, that so it shall bee for euer, but onely to shew that this is the Law and Commandement of God, teaching what the Priests and People should doe and ought to doe, euen as in the Commaudement, Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me. The words doe not pro­mise, that the Israelites should alwaies acknowledge and worship Iehouah the true God alone, (for the euent shewed the contrary within 40. payes) but shew what they ought to doe; but the words are a coms mandement recited, not a promise made, the word­of the 4. verse shew. Therefore our English trans­lation is most perfect of all, shewing not onely the sense and meaning of the Law, but also how it did binde the Priest and People, and how they ought to obey it. Thus you see how your example doth make for vs against your selfe.

Mr. Smith finding worse successe then hee expected in this example, and perceiuing the standers by to be well satisfied with this answer, flees presently to another, to wit, Dan. 4. 27. where in our English Translation the words run thus. Breake off thy sins by righteousnes, & thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poore: Here saith he, the word in the Chaldee, which is the O­riginall, Perok, signifies to Redeeme, and so the Greeke and Latine Translations render it; but your Translati­ons of purpose, contrary to all the ancient receiued Tran­slators, and to the nature of the word in the originall, do translate it, Breake off, and that of purpose to oppose the true doctrine of satisfaction & merit by good works. Therefore your Church is a false Church.

Howsoeuer other translations run, I am sure our English is in sense most sound & Orthodoxe. That translation which counsels Nabuchadnezar to re­deeme his sins by righteousnesse, is (as the words doerun) senslesse and against all reason; For God neuer appointed that mens sinnes should bee redee­med; but his will is, that they should bee mortified and destroyed, and he so hates them, that hee can­not leaue them vnpunished, but will haue iust ven­geance to be executed for them, eithervpon the sin­ner himselfe, or on his surety. If you vnderstand the words (as you seeme to vrge them) that Nabu­chadnezar a wicked Heathen King, should by his own righteousnesse redeeme himselfe from his sins; you doe make Daniel a teacher of heresie and blas­phemie: for it is no lesse then blasphemy, to hold [Page] that an Idolatrous Pagan may by his owne righte­ousnesse redeeme himselfe: it makes void the pro­mise of Christ the Redeemer. But our English translation doth teach excellent truth; to wit, that a true conuert ought not only to beleeue in Christ, and by faith to put on the Robe of Righteousnesse, that therin he may appeare righteous before God, and comely in his sight; but also to breake off his sinfull course of life, and neuer to goe on any lon­ger in any knowne sinne, as Papists doe, in hope of absolution by confession and pennance. And there­fore I doubt not, but the word in the originall will be more agreeable to our translation, when wee come to see and examine it, if you be pleased to let me see your Hebrew Bible.

Loe here in the originall the word is in the Caldee Pe­rok, which signifies onely to redeeme, [...] as the Greeke translation renders it: and the Latine Redeeme.

I thought that wee should finde it thus, when we came to the tryall; dare you here before these Gen­tlemen put on such an impudent face, as to affirme without feare or shame that this Parak signifies on­ly to redeeme and nothing else?

I confesseit signifies also to breake in sunder, but neuer to breake off.

Yea, it signifies all kinde of breaking, euen brea­king asunder, breaking a pieces, and breaking off; for indeed it is an Hebrew word, and the Caldee [Page] borrowes it form the Hebrew, the first and most proper signification of it, is to breake asunder, or to breake off: and it doth signifie to Redeeme only in a trope by a Metominie of the cause for the effect, for men are redeemed out of bondage, by hauing their yoke of bondage broken off from their necke, and their chaines and fetters broken in sunder, and that that breaking is the meanes of their Redemp­tion: That it signifies properly to breake off, ap­peares by the common vse of it in the Scriptures, as Gen. 27. 40. where Isaac saith to Esau. Thou shalt breake off his yoke from thy necke: Exod. 32. 2. where Aaron said to the people, Breake off the golden eare­rings which are in the eares of your wiues, &c. Thus Gentlemen you see what a bold face this man can set vpon a falshood, and how hee goeth about to beare downe the truth with great words.

Vpon this Sir Edward Harwood stood vp and said, that Mr. Smith hath failed much in this proofe, see­ing the word in the original did beare another sense more proper, then that which he vrged for the only true sense. And that the proper sense which the English translation did follow, being so agreeable to the rule of faith was rather to be embraced.

M. Smith thus confounded had no shift but this: That the Hebrew text was by the malice of the Iewes corrup­ted in many things, and that it was written of old with­out pricks, vntill the Iewish Massorites did inuent pricks and vowels, by which we doe reade it, diuers hundreds of yeeres after Christ: And therefore he would not build [Page] naturall point on the originall Hebrew words.

Now (saith Mr. Walker) you shew you selse what you are in your owne colours, euen one who esteemes no authority or testimony either of God or man, further then they serue your owne turne: while you immagined that the Hebrew Text was a­gainst our translation, you did vrge it with great ve­hemencie, as the authority and testimony of God. Now when it failes you and contrary to your ex­pectation doth make for vs: you vilifie it and reiect it, as a thing corrupted by the Iewes, and formed according to the minde and pleasure of the Iewish Massorites: wherein you shew not onely vanity of mind and inconstancie: but also malice and wicked­nesse ioined with wilfull ignorance. For how soeuer Elias Leuita a turnecoate Iew of later times, may seeme to affirme such a thing (perhaps to please his Patron Aegidius) that the Vowels were inuented by the Massorites of Tiberias: yet it is the iudge­ment of all the best learned, both Iewish Rabbins and Christians, that the pricks, vowels and accents, were from the beginning. And the Massorites were Iewes gathered both out of the East and West of purpose, to compare their most auncient and au­thentick Manuscrips together, and when they found them all to agree in Letters and points, they made their Massorah, and noted how many times such a word was written with such pricks in the Scripture; how many verses, words, yet letters were in the Law, and which was the middle verse, word and letter, so that by their Massorah, if it hab beene kept [Page] perfect, a man might finde out, if there were but one word, letter, or prick altered or taken away out of all the old Testament. All the differences which were found between the Bibles of the Easterne and Westerne Iewes, are recorded and kept to this day, the one set down vnder the names of the Sonnes of Ashur, the other vnder the names of the Sonnes of Nephtali, and they are such as do not alter the sense at all, as may bee seene in all our great Rabbinicall Bibles; The end therefore of the Massarites mee­ting, and of their worke, was not to inuent vowels and prickes, but onely to note how they did finde the Scriptures pricked and vowelled from the daies of old, and to set downe rules from the knowledge thereof, and for the preseruing them without altera­tion or corruption to all posterities: Thus much I haue learned out of the Rabbins, though my skill bee but small in their Language, and though I haue had no time to spend in the study of them, but such as I haue stollen from my other necessary studies of Diuinity, which properly concerne my Calling. And if you know not this to be true, I am sure you are but a weak Hebrutian, and slenderly read in He­brew Rabbins.

All the Rabbins are of opinion, that the pricks of the Bible were inuented by the Massarites, and vndoub­tedly that opinion is the truth.

I pray you name one Rabbin of note, who is of that opinion, and I will name you ten of the contra­ry; I haue ten or twelue of the best Rabbin Comen­taries [Page] vpon the Law of Moses, which I will shew to you, and if you can finde any of them to be of that opinion, I will yeeld vnto you in this point. Nay, more then that, I will shew out of the Scriptures written by Moses, that the originall Scriptures of Moses his Law, which were kept in the Tabernacle by the Priests, were written, not single without pricks as common coppies were, but double, both with letters and pricks, so that none could doubt of the right reading of them.

It is easily said; but impossible to be proued, if you can shew me any such thing out of the Scriptures, you shall do more then any euer yet could doe.

Looke Deut. 17. 18. and there it is plainly testi­fied, that there was a booke of the Law appointed to be kept before the Priests & Leuites in the San­ctuary; out of which, the King was commanded to write him a double written Copie of the Law, that is a copie written both with letters and pricks, and so most easie to be read and vnderstood; for the He­brew word there vsed is Mishneth, which signifies Double, and so you see here in your interliniall Bi­ble Pagani doth translate it (Duplum legis) that is, the Law written in the double forme, both with letters and pricks.

Mr. Smith being confounded with this proofe could answer nothing, & therfore another Priest who did sit by to assist him, answered for him, that the Hebrew word Mishneth doth not signifie the originall Scriptures, but [Page] the exposition of the Rabbins vpon the text of Scripture.

It is true that the Rabbins call their Expositions somtimes by this name, as for example Rabbi Moses, Maymonides call his Summe of the Talmid, Mishueth Torah: But you must know that in Moses his dayes, when he wrote this Booke of Deuteronomy, there were no Rabbinical Commentaries, nor for a thou­sand yeares after; only the Law it selfe was kept be­fore the Priests, and the King was commanded to write it onely into a Booke; There Mishueth can­not here signifie any thing but the Text of the Law written in double forme, which double forme of writing was easie to bee read and vnderstood, and was an exposition in respect of the single writing without prickes. Whereupon this word Mishueth came to signifie an Exposition or Commentary which doth largely expresse the meaning of the Law, which is more short and obscure: and the Iewes do call by this name the Book of Deuterono­my, because it is an Exposition of the Lawes writ­ten more obscurely in the other bookes: And their Expositions of the Law set down in their Talmud: they also call Mishueth and Mishuai [...]th.

The word Mishueth doth not signifie properly the Scripture, but the doubled Law: for the Scripture is called Mickra in the Hebrew tongue.

The Law is the first Scripture which was written, and therefore the word Mishuith by your own con­fession, signisying the Law doubled, is written in [Page] double forme, signifies the Scripture written both with letters and pricks, and so you contradict your selfe in your speech: Whereas you alledge another name, by which the Hebrewes call the Scripture, to wit, Mickra, and from them would inferre, that the Scripture is neuer called Mishueth by them: I answer, that your reason is ridiculous, for one name of the Scripture doth not take away the rest, but it hath di­uers names in all languages: we in English call it the Scripture, and the Bible, and the Booke of God, and Gods word: So in Hebrew the Scripture is called by diuers names; sometimes Torah, that is, the Law, because it is the rule of Life; sometimes Chethab, The Scripture or writing, because it is written. Some­times Mickra, because it is read of all Gods people. And as it is written full and plaine in letters and pricks, it is called Mishueh. The Priest hauing no­thing to reply to this answer, but holding his peace. Some of the Gentlemen desired, that these disputa­tions about the Hebrew text, which they could not vnderstand might cease, and that Mr. Smith would dispute in plaine English by way of Syllogismes; To which motion both parties agreed. And so Mr. Smith proceeded to another Argument, which was written downe first, and then answered.

That Church which may erre for a time in a fundamen­tall point necessary to saluation, is no true Church. Yours is such.

I deny your proposition; for a true Church may so erre for a time.

That Church which may erre for a time in a funda­mentall point necessary to saluation, hath no certainty for that time, yours is such, Ergo, it is no true Church.

Your Argument is Sophisticall and faultie diuers wayes: First, it doth not proue the proposition which I denyed, and so it is a fallacy, which we call [...], Ignorationem Elanchi. Secondly, it is no true Syllogisme, because it hath foure tearmes. For the premisses tend to proue that our Church hath no certaintie, and you conclude otherwise: to wit, that it is no true Church. Thirdly, the proposition is false, for actuall erring in one point, doth not take a­way certainty in all the rest, much lesse possibilitie of erring for a time.

I proue it thus. That Church which may erre for a time in a fundamentall point necessary to saluation, hath not sufficient meanes of saluation for that time: yours is such, Ergo, it is no true Church.

Here are the same three faults, which were in your former Argument. First, no proofe of the proposi­tion denyed. Secondly, foure tearmes. Thirdly, the manner is still false: for possibilitie of erring doth not take away sufficiency of meanes for the time.

I proue it thus. That Church which may erre for a time in a fundamentall point necessary to saluation, for that time hath not the whole infallible truth requisite to [Page] salvation. But your Church may so erre: Ergo. It hath not the whole infallible faith requisite for salvation.

I see you cannot bring one argument to proue that which I denyed; but still you doe begin a new Argument to proue new things. Notwithstanding I will follow you wheresoever you goe; and there­fore I deny the maior, and doe require you to proue that possibility of erring, takes away the whole in­fallible faith from such as are subiect to it.

I proue it thus. The beliefe of the whole infallible faith, is a meanes necessary to salvation. The English Church hath not the whole infallible faith: Ergo. That Church which may erre for a time in a fundament­all point, for that time hath not meanes sufficient.

Now sir I see you haue lost the question, and your reason, and your selfe, and all your speech is a Cha­os without forme or figure, and proueth nothing at all: If you be not able to make a Syllogisme; I pray you confesse your weakenesse: and let mee dispute one of my questions against you, and let vs trie what facultie you haue in defending your cause; I am sure you haue none to any purpose in oppo­sing it.

Stay a little, and I will bring it into a Syllogisme presently. The whole intire, infallible faith in all funda­mentall points, is onely a meanes sufficient to salvation: That Church which may erre for a time in a funda­mentall point, hath not the whole infallible faith: [Page] Ergo: it hath not sufficient meanes, &c.

You cloy me with crasie Syllogismes which haue neither mood nor figure, and which tend to proue nothing but onely to repeat what hath beene before denyed; to wit, That possibility of erring for a time in a fundamentall point, doth depriue a Church of the whole infallible faith. Thus you bring in againe as your minor, though it hath before beene denyed: and therefore I will still put you to proue it. But I pray you let your assistant write downe your Syllo­gismes, for I am weary of writing, and of wasting paper, with false fallacies and confused speeches, which hath neither mood nor figure.

I am sure I shall quickly bring my Argument into forme, if you stand so strictly on artificiall Syllogismes: Hauing thus sayd, he arose from the table, as if hee would breath himselfe; and after much scratching of his head, and other gestures, he turnes to the Priest his assistant and bids him write: and did dictate vnto him another false Syllogisme of some tearmes: which Mr. Walker reiected and derided; And after that another, which was so reie­cted: And after that a third, and so on till he had spent a side of a leafe in folio in writing downe fallacies, and a large halfe houre and more of time.

So that Mr. Walker began to intreat him that he would giue him leaue to make his Syllogisme for him, for he perceiued what he intended

Whereat Mr. Smith chafed, and sayd to the Gentle­men, he confounds me, or else I could haue long agoe brought it into a Syllogisme.

[Page] Mr. Walker answered: you doe me wrong to at­tribute to mee the honour which belongs to God and his truth, for they confound you and not I.

Then one of the Roman Catholikes began to sweare by God, that Mr. Smith did make a true Syllogisme, which Mr. Walker had without cause reiected.

Mr. VValker desired him to repeat it, and to shew it to be regular, according to moode and figure.

The Roman Catholike swore againe divers great oathes, and sayd that he would take the Sacrament vpon it, and renounce his salvation if hee did not heare Mr. Smith make a true Syllogisme, and that one of them which Mr. Walker reiected was it.

Mr. VValker answered, that oathes could not proue false Syllogismes to be true, neither could the Sacra­ment turne a fallacy into a sound Argument. And told him that if he were so prodigall of his saluati­on, he might sooner lose his soule, then make a Syl­logisme out of Mr. Smiths confused speeches and fallacies. At length after much adoe Mr. Smith ham­mered out this Syllogisme.

That Church which hath not the whole intire infallible faith, hath not meanes sufficient to salvation, That Church which may erre for a time, hath not the whole in­tire infallible faith, Ergo, it hath not meanes sufficient.

I deny your minor, and doe put you to proue, that the Church which may erre, hath not the whole in­fallible faith.

I proue it thus: That Church which is subiect to error, [Page] hath not the whole infallible faith. That Church which may erre is subiect to error. Ergo.

Now sir I thanke you, that you haue bestowed a Syllogisme vpon me, to proue the proposition de­nied. But I must tell you, that your maior proposi­tion is false. For a Church may be so far subiect to error, that it may haue a possibility to erre, and yet not be voide of the whole infallible faith: It is one thing to be subiect to error, and another thing to erre actually: we hold that our Church or any other particular Protestant Church may erre; but doe not thinke that our Church doth erre in any fundamen­tall point.

You doe but cavill; for if it may erre, it is as bad as if it did erre, and therefore I haue sufficiently convinced you by my argument.

I hope you doe not speake as you thinke, nor thinke as you speake: For you know that by our Law euery Seminary Priest is subiect to hanging and quartering, and there is no impossibility of ex­ecuting the Law vpon them; And yet you hope that all or the most part of them in England shall not be actually executed; and you know that they are not all in the same case, as if they were hanging ac­tually: For an Argument doth not follow a posse ad esse, as we Schollers speake. But now seeing your argument is hanged vp, and wee haue spent foure houres and more in hearing you dispute to no pur­pose, I pray you let mee prosecute one of my [Page] questions against you for the time which remaineth, and I hope to make more Syllogismes in an houre, then you haue done in foure, if you will answer me directly.

Here some of the Roman Catholikes said that it was full sixe a clocke, and now there was little time left. But some of the Protestants desired to heare Mr. Walker dispute vpon his questions. Which when Mr. Smith seemed loath to yeeld vnto, as being wea­ry already. Mr. Walker desired, that he might but turne one Argument against Mr. Smiths question, and proue the contrary to be true. To this all assen­ted, and the Gentleman who began to distrust his former professed Popery comming to Mr. Walker, and standing at his backe desired him to presse one Argument against Mr. Smiths question. Whereupon Mr. Walker thus began to proue, That a true Christian Church might erre for a time in some fundamentall point, and yet be a true Church.

That which the auncient Apostolicall Church might doe, other succeeding Churches may doe with the same successe. The Apostolicall Church might erre and did erre in a maine point, and yet haue a true faith, and was a true Church, Ergo, other Churches also.

I deny the minor, the Apostolicall Church did not erre in any maine point.

The resurrection of Christ from the dead taught in the Scriptures, is a fundamentall point of Faith. [Page] The Apostolike Church did erre in it, Ergo:

Mr. VValker proued it thus. That which the Gos­pell teacheth in expresse words is true. This the Gos­pell teacheth, that the Apostles erred in Christs re­surrection, Ergo.

If you say that they erred in the resurrection de fac­to, that is concerning the act of it, I grant the minor: But if you speake of the resurrection as it is a point of Faith, I deny your minor.

You distinguish strangely betweene a thing and it selfe; for the very act of Christs resurrection is a point of Faith, without which our faith is vaine as the A­postle sayth, 1 Cor. 15. 17.

It is now a point of faith, but it was not then, because the Scriptures had not expressely revealed, that Christ should rise from death.

That which Christ had expresly taught by word of mouth, was thereby made a point of Faith, and they were bound to beleeue. But he had told them, that he must suffer and rise againe the third day: and that in plaine words, as the Gospell testifies, Ergo.

Here some of the Gentlemen said, that the point was sufficiently proued.

But I deny that the Apostles erred in the Resurrection: shew me that out of the Gospell.

It is testified Ioh. 20. 9. That they knew not the Scrip­ture that he must rise from the dead. Loe thus it is testi­fied in your owne vulgar Latine Bible.

I say still, that the Scriptures had not reuealed it suffi­ciently, and therefore it was no point of faith.

The text shewes that the Scripture had reuealed, for else how could it truely say, that they knew not the Scripture; if the Scripture had not taught it? It is no ignorance of Scripture, not to know what the Scripture neuer taught.

O well sayd, I protest I neuer heard any point so plaine­ly proued; and then turning himselfe to the wauering Gentleman said: Now cousen, if euer thou wilt be con­uerted, be conuerted with these proofes.

But yet I will proue it more fully, Luk. 24. 44. 45. Our Sauiour there saith, that he had told them be­fore, that he must die and rise againe, and that it was written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalmes, and it is said there, that he ope­ned their vnderstanding, that they might vnder­stand the Scriptures.

This was an error of ignorance or forgetfulnesse, for want of instruction and exercise in the Word, which suc­ceeding Churches haue more aboundantly.

You cauill against common sense, for I dispute [Page] not whence this error proceeded, but whether they erred in that maine point of the resurrection or not; and that you cannot deny, so that the point is fully proued which I vndertooke. Againe, I can shew you yet further, that Christ having instructed them in the Scriptures, and from his owne mouth, it could not be for want of instruction that they erred, but this error proceeded from incredulity and hardnes of heart in them, so it appeares, Mark. 16. 14. where it is said that our Sauiour appeared to the eleven A­postles, and vpbraided them with their incredulitie and hardnesse of heart, because they beleeued not them which had seene him after he was risen.

Mr. Smith being put to silence with those proofes, the other Priest to make vp this breach, fled to another shift, and denyed the Apostles to haue beene a Church at that time, because the holy Ghost was not yet come downe, nor the Euangelicall Law reuealed.

Vpon this, Mr. Walker first spake to the wauering Gentleman, and asked him, whether he thought it not well for him to be of such a Church as St. Peter was, when Christ said. Math. 16. Happy art thou Si­mon, &c. And, vpon this rocke I will build my Church. Who answered, that he desired to be of no better Church. Secondly, he proceeded thus; The King­dome of God which comes by the Preaching of the Gos­pell is the true Church. But that was come alreadie, as our Sauiour himselfe testified, Matth. 11. 28. and Luk. 11. 20. It is a base shift, to say that the comming downe of the holy Ghost made them a Church: [Page] For his extraordinary gifts came not to make them Christians, and members of the Church of Christ, but to make them fit messengers to Preach to all Na­tions, and to euery people, in their proper tongue. But if all this will not conuince you, let vs know who were the Church in those dayes, if the Apo­stles were not. Peter had receiued that commission and promise long before, vpon which you build the Church of Rome, if it was not then able to make him of the Church, how can it now vphold your Church against all the gates of hell? Now then to conclude, I beseech you as you loue your soules, take heed of sinning against your owne Conscience, and of rebelling against the light: you know that the Apostles were elected from all eternitie; they were effectually called by Christ himselfe, not one­ly to beleeue, and to be Christians and open profes­sors, but also to be Apostles and Preachers, and by the Gospell Preached and Miracles wrought, they had conuerted many to the faith, as the Gospell testi­fieth; And therefore nothing being wanting in them, which is required to the essence of a Christi­an Church: vndoubtedly they were a true Church, and to deny this, is to resist the manifest truth of the Gospell. Thus the disputation ended; for the Priests did not giue any answer, but were very willing to make an end. The Protestant Gentlemen seemed well satisfied, and made them readie to depart. And one of the Roman Catholikes calling Mr. VValker aside, began to collogue and flatter with him; telling him, that he was a good Logician, a good Linguist, and well read, and that God had giuen him a sharpe [Page] wit and ready tongue: And therefore no maruell though he preuailed and made a good cause seeme bad, when he opposed it, and a bad seeme good when he defended it: But saith he, take heed that you do not trust to your wit and learning too much, least they deceiue you, and make you triumph ouer the truth.

To him Mr. Walker answered, that he knew him­selfe inferiour to many hundreds in the Church of England; that it was not any power in himselfe, but the power of the true cause which made him to pre­uaile. For, Magnus est veritas & praeualebit, Great is truth and will preuaile. A Gentleman ouer-hearing, laughed and sayd, I am glad that you finde some of our Ministers more learned then your Priests; con­trary to your common bragging and boasting, that all learning is among your Priests and Iesuites. And so they parted. Mr. Smith alias Norrice embracing Mr. Walker, and saying; I pray God we may meet in heauen; and Mr. Walker replying and saying, I desire so also, and hope we shall so doe, if you will forsake your errours and embrace the truth, which is professed in the refor­med Churches of CHRIST.

Soli Deo gloria.