A TRUE REPORT OF THE Private Colloquy between M. Smith, aliâs Norrice, and M. Walker.  
Held in the presence of two Worthy Knights, and of a few other Gentlemen, some Catholics, some Protestants.  
With a brief Confutation of the false, and adulterated sum, which M. Walker, Pastor of S. john Evangelist in Watling-streete, hath diuulged of the same.  
Permissu Superiorum. M. DC. XXIIII.   

TO THE READER.  
IT IS no Novelty lately practised by the Protestant's of our age; it hath always been the usual trade, and inveterate guile of Heretics in former times, to corrupt, falsify, and deprave, not only the Books, and Writings, but the words, sayings, and other Conferences they have held with the professors of the Catholic Church. Origen 
Ruffin in Apol. pro Orig.  complaineth how his books were thus abused by the enemies of God, and Sowers of Cockle, even in his own days. S. Augustine 
Aug. in brevi. Collatine.  writeth, that the Donatists being convicted of falsehood in a Collation he had with them, did after maliciously calumniate, and traduce the sentence given against them, as falsely pronounced. The Arians, Pelagians, and other ancient Sectaries were attainted of the like crime. And now our Puritans, and Protestants are proved guilty of the same, or far more treacherous dealing, by which they labour to underprop the rotten beams of their ruinous, unconstant, & declining doctrine.  
2. Of this fraud and deceit Hunnius, Hailbronner, and their companions were 
Tanner. in relat. compend. de collat. Ratisb. Idem apparet ex protocollo.  guilty, who being vanquished in the meeting at Ratisbone, diuulged notwithstanding many false reports of their triumph and victory. Of this was M. jewel guilty, as D. Harding in many of his writings, & M. Walsingham in his Search, have evidently discovered. Guilty was M. Reynolds in publishing his Conference with M. Hart, wherein he forged diverse things to the credit of his own, and disadvantage of his Opponents cause, of which he never so much as dreamt. Therefore S. Gregory truly averreth of these, and such like heretics, that, by their labours and disquisitions, they endeavour not so much to attain the truth, as to seem victorious: they more eager thirst after the applause of men, than the glory of God: they seek such things as appertain to themselves, not such as belong to jesus Christ.  
3. In which kind, most notable now of late, and most fresh in memory, is the pride and arrogancy of D. Featly, who impudently boasted of his supposed Conquest in a meeting which he, & D. White had with M. Fisher, and M. Sweet: from which nevertheless he cowardly fled; wholly discomfited, and blotted with the ignomonie of a desperate Retreat. No less shameful (though in a conflict less famous) is the vanity of M. Walker, in bragging of the Conference between him and M. Smith, which himself hath set forth stuffed with such a heapeof false and guileful relations, as he may seem (according to the Prophet) to have made lying to be protected. Nothing trembling at that 
Isa. 〈◊〉. v. 15.  dreadful sentence which is prophesied of him; Thou (O Lord) hatest all that work iniquity. 
Psal. 5. v. 7.  thou wilt destroy them all that tell a lie. Howbeit not one, but so many lies hath he diuulged, as I may say with jeremy, he hath bend his tongue, or prepared his quill, 
Hier. ●. v. ●.  as a bow of lying, and not of truth etc. His tongue is a wandering arrow; it hath spoken guile. For in relating the arguments and answers which passed on both sides, some he changeth, some he corrupteth: here he leaveth out, there he foisteth in: one while he disjointeth the words, otherwhile he dismembreth, & perverteth the sense: in fine he maketh such a misshapen and confused Chaos of malicious slanders, of foolish & impertinent additions, as may well become one of his own deformed and bastardly brood; which the judicious Reader may plainly perceive by the true narration I shall here deliver, without inserting any more than shallbe necessary for the just reproof of the adversary's forgeries, or redargution of other speeches purposely omitted, and suppressed by him.  
4. Yet marvel not I have so long delayed 
The first Copy which miscarried, was carried in all likelihood to M●. Walker, that he may be furnished before hand with his Reply.  this obligation I had, to clear myself, & satisfy the interest jowe to truth. For the first Copy of my answer fully perfected, and addressed to the press (though in a foreign Country, because the time permitteth not any such commodity at home) was, as it often happeneth, intercepted by the way, and the interception concealed from my knowledge for the space of six whole weeks. So powerful is the adverse faction in bearing us down, and openly disgracing us with their calumnious libels; and so vigilant and watchful in stopping all possible means we should take, to manifest our innocence. But such violent oppression cannot still continue; the Widow's tears, the Orphan's cries will at length be heard; and Christ's afflicted flock, our silenced pens, may find a time to lay open our sincerity, and the wrong which is done us, by their false criminations.   

A TRUE REPORT OF THE Private Colloquy, between M. Smith, aliâs Norrice, & M. Walker.  M. SMITH, aliâs NORRICE. So M. Walker styleth me. 
FIRST than it is false, that I challenged any Minister to dispute: I only yielded for the satisfaction of Sir William Harington, to give a meeting to any whom he should bring. Secondly, it is false, that I was assisted by any more Priests then only one, by any more Catholics then four; I for solemnly conditioned at the beginning, that there should be no more than five or six persons at the most on a side: to the end the Conference might be very secret, and private, without concourse of people, or noise abroad, for fear of affoarding disgust unto the State, in that our quiet time of peace and connivency. Which conditions I punctually observed, though the Adversary was so bold as to violate and infringe them, both by bringing more than the appointed number, as by publishing also the whole discourse, to the open view and sight of the Realm; yet so fraudulently, so corruptly, as forceth me to this right and unfeigned reply. Then, although it be true, that I entreated the disputation might be performed sweetly, and with all mildness, without bitter words, or reproachful taunts; yet M. Walker made no such answer as he hath forged in his Pamphlet. True also it is, that I excepted against the unmannerly terms of calling our Church Whore of Babylon, the Pope Antichrist, & desired no such odious Epithets might be used, now especially when it pleased the King's Majesty to send to his Holiness for a dispensation for the marriage of our Noble Prince; Yet I said not, that his Majesty sued to his Holiness, or gave the Pope that honour: The awe of reverence I bore to so mighty a Monarch did temper my tongue from using any such words, as seemed to carry the least show of distaste. At length that we might proceed more solidelie, and not float up and down upon uncertaynties, I desired we might both agree in some general positions, or irrevocable Tenants, as grounds of our ensuing dispute. Whereupon being to prove, That the Protestants Church is not the true Church of jesus Christ, nor, That it hath his true faith, I demanded of M. Walker, whether the true Church be always visible, or no?  M. WALKER. 
The true Catholic Church is not visible, because it 
Yet M. Rogers among his articles to which this minister did, or aught to have sworn hath: The visible Church is a Catholic Church. art. 1●.  comprehendeth the whole company of the elect of which the greatest part being Saints in heaven, are without the ●each of man's eye, and cannot be seen.  M. SMITH. 
My question is not of the Church Triumphant in heaven, but of the true Catholic Church Militant upon earth.  M. WALKER. 
But thus your words and question cohere not together: for it is as absurd to say, that the Catholic Church is militant on earth, as it is absurd to affirm, that all mankind, even the universal race of Adam, are now living.  M. SMITH. 
Was S. Cyprian then absurd, who called the 
Cyp. l. 4. ep. 9  militant Church, united and conjoined in the union and link of Priests, adhering together, The one Catholic Church? To communicate with Cornelius, the head 
Idem ep. 52.  only of the militant, was to communicate with the Catholic Church? Was S. Augustine absurd, who termeth 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 johan▪ de fi●e ad Petrum cap. 19  must hold, The Catholic Church? The militant Church, dispersed over the face of the earth, The Catholic Church? The militant Church, in which alone one baptism may be wholesomelie obtained, The one incorrupt Catholic Church? The militant Church, in which by imposition of hands, the holy Ghost is given▪ The only Catholic Church? The Church, in which good and evil be, as chaff and corn, The Catholic Church? The Church in which the sacrifice of bread and wine in faith and charity ceaseth not to be offered throughout the universal world, The holy Catholic Church? But to press you no further with the testimonies of men; was the Son of God absurd, when he said, Other sheep● 
joan. 10. v. 16.  I have, that are not of this fold, them also I must bring; & they shall hear my voice, & there shallbe made one fold, & one Pastor? Who were these other sheep, but either Predestinate, or many of them at least? To what Fold were they brought? Without doubt to Christ's visible, to Christ's militant, to Christ's 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 chief and supreme Pastor. Therefore not your invisible, but the visible, and militant is the true Catholic Church of JESUS Christ Neither are the Predestinate, as you pretend, before they be called, members 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 ambiguity of terms; I tell you once again, that I speak not of your Catholic, and Invisible, but of that militant Church, which we are bound to obey, and hear, that, of whose Communion we ought to be; that, of which Christ said, di● Ecclesiae, Tell the 
Math. 18. v. 17.  Church. What hold you of this? I● this Church visible, or no?  M. WALKER. 
I distinguish. That Church may be two ways considered; either in regard of her outward men, outward duties of Christianity, 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 spiritual graces, and so it is invisible.  A Catholic Gentleman. 
Reserve your distinctions, until you need them, and now answer directly to the Question.  M. SMITH. 
Ask me any question, and try whether I will use any such tergiversation. What, is your Conscience so horrid, or cause so bad, as you dare never give a direct answer?  M. WALKER. 
I answer, as I believe.  M. SMITH. 
And do you not believe, what your own men teach concerning this point? Do they not teach, that the Church which we ought to hear, is visible? Or may we hear an invisible? Doth not D. Whitaker define it by these marks, to wit, by the 
Whitaker ●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 saith, that these marks signify, and denote a visible Church. Now, do not you believe as he doth? Or are you afraid to confess that Church to be visible which he confesseth? Man consisteth of an invisible essence, yet is a visible man: so the Church may have some invisible dowries, yet be a visible Church.  M. WALKER. 
You wrong D. Whitaker: He never taught that the whole Essence of the Church consisted in the true peaching of the word, and administration of Sacraments.  M. SMITH. 
I wrong him not: He teacheth, writeth, and diuulgeth it in print; though you wrong both yourself and us, in making these digressions, and picking every occasion to run from the matter.  M. WALKER. 
Dare you stand to this, that M. Whitaker writeth it? I have b●th read him, and studied him, I am sure he hath no such matter.  M. SMITH. 
His books are extant: you studied them slightly, or understood them not. I am sure he hath it.  M. WALKER. 
Because I will not spend time in contesting with 
See how cunningly he diverteth from his own exception, and from D. whitaker's express words, who sayeth: Quaestio non est de notis invisibilis Ecclesiae etc. The Question is not of the marks of ●●e invisible Church.  you, let this be the issue before these Gentlemen: let us send for D. whitaker's works, and if I do not show that he doth prove against Bellarmine, that the Catholic Church i● invisible, & that this is a main poin● large lie disputed by him, and a main controversy between him and Bellarmine, let me branded with the mark of a wilful liar.  M. SMITH. 
Will you still fly to the ambush of your hidden Church? Shall I never bring you into the open field? Have I not sufficiently inculcated unto you, that my question is of the Church now militant on earth; of that Church which we ought to hear, and obey; of that which M. Whitaker describeth by the marks before mentioned; of that which yourself distinguished to be partly visible, partly invisible? And run you now back again to your counterfeit Catholic, and wholly invisible Church? Are you so suddenly distracted of your wi●s, as not only to forget what I had said, but what yourself had written immediately before? Yet perhaps I may mistake: It proceeded not so much from the giddiness of your brain, as from the guiltiness of your conscience; which mistrusting the vain & unadvised challenge you made, would now like a cunning Cheater, by foisting in these words guilefullie, divert it to a quite contrary purpose. For I never denied that M. Whitaker forgeth an invisible Catholic Church; but I so often canvased you from straying 
Contro. 2. q ● ca 18. fol 494. & cap. ●1. Nos non invisibilis Ecclesiae, sed veras certasque n●tas visibilis Ecclesiae quaerimus.  thither, as common sense might have taught you to keep on your way, & stand to your tackling in maintaining the quarrel, or saucy exception you took 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 said. Against which you contested as before: your words, to deliver the contestation truly as it was, I must in part repeat again, leaving out that counterfeit passage which you of mere fraud so treacherously insert.  M. WALKER. 
Well I am content to make this the very issue of our meeting: And if M Whitaker affirm any such thing, let me be branded with the mark of a wilful liar, impostor, and false Prophet. But if I show the contrary out of his own writings, then shall you confess yourself a forger, a falsifier, an impostor, & a Priest of Baal. The gentlemen all confessed this was fair play, & desired it might be soc. Whereupon M. Smith (as M. Walker writeth▪ began to drawbacke & showed himself unwilling, & much afraid to hazard his credit so quickly, & would gladly have left this point, & fallen into another.  M. SMITH. 
How little I was afraid to hazard my credit in that matter, the standers by at that time can witness; and the evidences I am now to bring out of M. Whitaker shall manifestly declare: for he supposing, that wheresoever the Word is truly preached, there it is heard, there it is believed, and conserved, and there it fructifieth in the hearts of some; 
Whitak in respon. ad 3. rat. Camp.  expressly averreth of the marks 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 mar, or destroy the Church. But if they comprehend the true nature of the Church, without which it cannot stand; they contain not the accidental, but the essential nature. If the essential Nature, the essence: if the essence, the whole essence, because it is indivisible; they must comprehend 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 
Whitak. ●ontro. 2. q. 5. cap. 17. 13. Vt causae effection prof●● etc. ita veritas Ecclesi●● constitute ●●●sque caus● est.  Word, is the cause of the Church etc. Then, as the cause produceth her effect, so truth doth constitute the Church, and is cause thereof▪ Besides he often affirmeth that, though this cause be more hidden to us, yet it is more known in nature, more known in itself then the Church: where he undoubtedly speaketh not of the efficient, but of the formal cause. And who is so mean a student, as not to know, that the formal cause of a thing, is the chief, principal, and formal 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 urge against me;) and yet the description he maketh by these marks I now handle, he plainly termeth a definition 
Witak. in resp. ad 3. rat. Camp. Hanc tu definitionem in nativis ipfius rei quam definimus etc. Controu. 2. q. 5. ca 17. Quae definiunt, ea denotant Ecclesiam etc. Sic quid sit Equus, Leo, Aquila ex definitione e●icitur.  of the Church, in his answer to M. Campian saying: This definition engendered in the native, and inward principles of the thing itself, which we define, thou shalt never be able to overthrow. Again in another place speaking of the same marks he sayeth; Those things which define, those denote, and signify the Church etc. So what a Horse what a Lion, what an Eagle is, by their definition it is known: Therefore as the definition of an Horse, of a Lion, of an Eagle contain their whole essence; so the aforesaid marks which define the Church, contain the whole essence and nature of the Church. By these three Arguments so strong, as M. Walker is not able to answer them, so clear, as he cannot delude them; the truth of my assertion is irreproveably confirmed, & he by his own challenge and engagement, is openly convinced to be a wilful liar, a forger, an impostor, a false prophet, and a Priest of Baal: for such he must be chronicled, for such entitled; and whatsoever hereafter he shall say or write, with that note of infamy, must be all discarded. Even such is that which here he writeth immediately after.  M. WALKER. 
Gentlemen it is true, that D. Whitaker maintains, that the Word truly preached, and the Sacraments rightly administered are the certain and infallible notes, and marks, by which every true particular Church may be discerned to be Christ's true Church; and you know, that the marks of a thing differ from the essence and substance of it; as the sign hanging at the door of a Tavern, disters from the Tavern itself: and the habit and cowl of a Monk, or Friar, which is the mark of his Order, differs from the Monk himself &c.  M. SMITH. 
Where were your wits, where was your judgement, where the reading of you Cantabrigian Professors, when you wrote this at random of their doctrine? For the sign of a Tavern, the habit of a monk, are ou ward & extrinsecall signs; those of M. whitaker's ●●c●et & internal: yours only known to the eye of sense, his to the understanding & eye of faith: 
Contro. ●▪ q. ●. c. 18.  yours separable his altogether inseparable: yours may be changed or taken away without hurt or annoyance of the subjects they design, his cannot be removed without destruction of the Church: yours 
In resp. ad 3. rat. Camp. ●stas nos Ecclesiae verissimas atque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprietates esse defendimus.  are not so much as accidental qualities, originally springing from the essence of the things, but voluntary signs instituted (as the Logicians say) to signify, at the will only and pleasure of man; M. whitaker's are most true, and (as he calleth them) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, proprietates, essential properties, essential marks, grafted in the inward principles of the Church itself; so little conversant are you in the monuments of your Master▪ Besides, you do not only write thus opposite unto him, but most childishly also contradict yourself, terming these notes of M. Whitaker, certain and infallible, and yet comparing them with mutable and uncertain signs, which only signify at man's appointment. For an ivy bush is not always an infallible sign of a Tavern, nor the habit of a Friar an infallible mark of him; as the Tragical murders, which no Friars, but bloody Homicides have committed in Friars weeds, and many other Comedies can tell you. But because you are so ignorant, as not to know yourself, what to say, or what your own men teach concerning this point; let me examine you about another, touching the Infallibility of the Church. What hold you? May the whole militant Church on earth err, or no?  M. WALKER. 
This is a captious and ambiguous question, & cannot directly in one word, negative or affirmative, be answered unto.  M. SMITH. 
No? D. Reynolds answereth affirmatively, that 
It is the second of his ● Conclusions printed at the end of his Confedance.  it may err; This is one of his Theses publicly defended in the University of Oxford; but you think all things captious, because you are set to cavil, and willing to decline the disputation we have in hand▪  M. WALKER. 
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, Weakness, and Imperfections of men who are liars; so we tr●●e say it may err. If we consider it according to the direction of God's holy Spirit, the assistance of Christ, his Prophets and Apostles as it is guided by their doctrine, cleaveth close to the Scripture, and swerveth not from them; so long we teach that it is infallible, and cannot err.  M. SMITH. 
But thus every Heretical Assembly is also infallible. 
Protestant's can challenge no more certainty, than all other heretics have done.  Thus the jews, Turks, Infidels, & Devils themselves 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 err. And what? hath your Church no more privilege, or freedom from error, than jews, than Turks, than Devils?  M. WALKER. 
Yes, because jews, and Turks adhere not to the word of God, they follow not the truth, we do.  M. SMITH. 
Do you, because you say you do? Will not they say the same, & have as good warrant as you? But how shall we know you follow the truth? what proofs allege you? To challenge it thus without proofs, seeing it is the matter controverted between us, is Petere principium; that is, miserably to beg the argument we handle, or to give that for a reason which is only in question: both most ridiculous, and hissed out of all schools. Therefore M. Walker was so wary, as to conceal in his Sum this inference of mine, and the foolish reply, or desperate Nonplus of his. Moreover, to say your Church cannot err, as it cleaveth close to God's Word, speaketh and teacheth according to it, or as long as it swerveth not from thence, is nothing else them to avouch 
Their ridiculous answer that they cannot err, as long as they speak true etc.  (though in other words) that it cannot err▪ as it cleaveth to truth, speaketh and teacheth according to truth; or that it cannot err, as long as it erreth not: which is as idle as the former was foolish; because to adhere to God's word, is to adhere to the truth; to swerve from thence, is to run into error. So that this answer is nothing to the purpose, no way able to satisfy my demand: for by ask of you, Whether your Church may err or no, I demand, whether it be so assisted by God, and guided by his holy spirit, as it must needs cleave to his word, it cannot depart from it in delivering any point of faith? What answer you to this, is your Church thus inerrable, or no?  M. WALKER. 
I have told you already, how it may err, and how it may not.  M. SMITH. 
And I have refuted what you said. If you have nothing else to answer to my Interrogatories; answer me a little to a Syllogism, or two I shall propose; by which I mean to prove, even by this which you have granted, that the Protestants Church of England, is not the true Church of JESUS Christ. And thus I frame my argument.  
That Church which hath not the word of God truly preached, and infallibly delivered, is not the true Church of JESUS Christ.  
But the Protestant Church of England, hath not the word of God truly preached, and infallibly delivered.  
Therefore, it is not the true Church of JESUS Christ.  M. WALKER. 
I deny the Minor.  M. SMITH. 
I prove the Minor.  
The word of God preached in the Church of England is corrupted with errors, and the men that deliver it, are subject to errors.  
Therefore the Church of England hath not the word of God truly preached, and infallibly delivered.  M. WALKER. 
I deny the Antecedent.  M. SMITH. 
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 evinced.  all true copies have; The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and the law they shal● require of his mouth; you corruptly read; The lips of the Priest should keep knowledge, and they should require the law of his mouth, contrary to the Hebrew text, which instead of shall keep, hath Iism●ru, instead of shall seek, jebakkesu; contrary to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, contrary the Latin which is custodient, and requirent, all being of the Future tense, and Indicative mood; which you have changed into the Preterimperfectense of the Optative, or Subiunctive mood; altering therein both mood and tense of set purpose, to gainsay the infallibility of Christ's visible pastors, who lawfully succeed in the Apostles room; and to patronage an error, or rather Heresy of your own, That the Priests & Prelates of God's Church may err in doctrine; and so the people not bound to require the law at their mouths.  M. WALKER. 
We have not corrupted the Hebrew text, for the true meaning of the Holy Ghost is perfectly delivered by our Translation.  M. SMITH. 
But answer me directly. Are not the Hebrew, 
In which they have altered both the mood & tense written by God.  Greek, and Latin words all in the future Tense? Do they not all import, shall keep, and shall require? And have not you altered both the tense, and mood? Is it not so? what say you?  M. WALKER. 
Though the words be in the future tense, yet we have kept the true sense, because the future tense in Hebrew by reason of vau conversiwm, may sometime stand for the preterimperfect tense of the Optative, Potential, o● Subiunctive mood, as our translation hath; therefore it is no● different, nor irregular from the Hebrew, which is the Original.  M. SMITH. 
But this is a mere collusion, for here is no Vaughan conversiwm in that place, nor can there be, as all that are cunning in the Hebrew can tell; so that this shift will not serve your turn; nor that other of keeping the sense. For I accuse you of corrupting the text: But to alter the tense, to alter the mood, to alter the word of the Holy Ghost, is to corrupt the text, to change the divine characters written by the finger of God: Therefore your Translation is guilty of this change, and corruption. Otherwise if adulterers of Scripture, may judge of the sense, where shall you find any adulteration? what Heretic can be convinced of corruption? For ask the Arians, ask the Valentinians, ask Martion, who for paring, or gnawing away many places of God's word, was called Mus-Ponticus, the mouse of Pontus, ask any of these Corrupters; they will all answer, they keep the sense, & bring as sound arguments, as you do, for the maintenance thereof: for such is your proof.  M. WALKER. 
It was ●euer the purpose of God's spirit in that place, or by these words to teach, that the law should aways be taught truly, and infallibly by the Priests, and Pastors, who succeed Moses, or the Apostles locally, in the church by a continued succession.  M. SMITH. 
here again you fall to Petere principium; for we prove, it was his purpose, because his words enforce it. And have you no other means to disprove it then by denying it was his purpose, because he did never purpose it? And why did he never purpose it? Because is not agreeable to the purpose of your Heretical frenzy: Though it be consonant & agreeable to God's sacred doctrine, uttered, & unfolded in diverse other places, as when he sayeth, that his spirit, his words shall not depart out of the mouth 
Isa. 5●. v. 〈◊〉. Luc. 10. v. 16.  of his Prophets, and their seed, and seeds seed for ever. That, he who heareth the Pastors of the Church, heareth him: That, if any controversy arise amongst inferiors, they shall come to the Priests of the Leviticall stock, 
Deut. 17. v. 8. & 9 These & diverse other passages, which I here omit, I have more largely discussed in the 3. part. of my Antid. chap. 1. 2. & ●.  and do whatsoever 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 needs be, not only a corruption of the text, but a depravation also of the sense of the Holy Ghost.  M. WALKER. 
That cannot be the sense, because the Priests, unto whom the Prophet speaketh there in the 2. of Malachy, were Levites, 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 gloss; and their abuse of the covenant of Levi etc. Yea some of them had sacrificed to Idols, as josephus showeth in his history.  M. SMITH. 
As though it were necessary for all Priests that have lawful calling to be free from error? or such as are fenced from erring in faith, should never be able to stumble in their lives? It is enough for the infallibility of Christ's Spouse, that the high Priest, and his Consistory, that the head of the Church, & her general Counsels be inerrable. It is enough that God doth preserve his truth in the mouths of vicious, and wicked men; as in the mouths of Scribes, and pharisees, when they sat on Moses his Chair; as the gift of prophecy in Ciaphas, of whom S. john recordeth, that he prophesied, because he was high Priest of that year. Seest thou (saith S. Chrysostome) how great the power of Po●t●sic 
joan. 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 villainous ●art. And S. 〈◊〉 of naughty pastors avoucheth; Will they, nill they &c. they shall speak the words of God; by reason of the promise, which here, and else where he hath made them.  M. WALKER. 
God did not make he●re a promise, but gave a commandment▪ teaching what the Priests and people should do, and aught to do; like that, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me. 
Exod. 20.   M. SMITH. 
In respect of the people, I grant it is a Commandment of God, that they ought to learn, and require the law from the mouths of the Priests. And I wonder how you presume to infringe this commandment, by sending them from their public voices, to your secret spirits, or hidden persuasions. Then by your own confession (because it is the commandment, and Precept of God, which the people, as you write, aught to obey) it must needs follow, that his Priests have his infallible promise and assurance of truth; otherwise the people could not with security repair unto them, otherwise they might err, and be deluded by them in matters of faith, they might be frustrated of their hope, & forfeit their salvation, even by following the express will, and commandment of God, which without open blasphemy cannot be averred. The same is manifestly declared by the reason the Holy Ghost assigneth, why the lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, because he is the Angel of the 
Malae. ●. v. 7. Cyril. in hun● lo●um. Chrys. in ●. ad T●moth.  Lord of Hosts H● is called (saith S. Cyrill) the Angel of the Lord of Hosts, because he delivereth unto men the Oracles of●iod, adding nothing, withdrawing nothing, but e●en the same ●e received of God. S. Chrysostome: The Priest is the Angel of our Lord, he speaketh nothing of himself: if thou despise, th●u despisest not him, but God. Moreover, if this were only a commandment given to Priests by way of direction what they should do; why did not your Translation express it according to the Hebrew in the future tense, as they did other Commandments; Thou shalt have no other 
Exod. 20.  Gods but me: Thou shalt not ste●le: Thou shalt not commit adultery & c? Surely their conscience gave them, that something more was here comprised, or else they would never have altered the mood, and tense; they would never have been more afraid of translating this commandment truly, agreeable to the Original, than they were of others. This change▪ this alteration, pleadeth them guilty; for let the sense be what it will; (though I have evidently demonstrated it to be as we teach;)  
Either the Holy Ghost knew better than Protestants, what tense he should use, to express that sense, or they better than he. Did they know better? O how detestable is their blasphemy, in ascribing more knowledge to men than to God Did he know better? O how diucl●●sh was their arrogancy, in 
A dilemma unanswerable.  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 unavoidable dilemma, as neither M. Walker, nor any other Minister is able to answer.  
Another corruption though more cunningly conveyed, is discovered in the 4. of Daniel v. 24. or 
The second corruption examined, and proved to be such.  27. where the English Bible hath, Break off thy sins by righteousness etc. instead of Redeem thou thy sins with Alms; For in the Latin it is Redime, in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Hebrew, in rather in the Chaldeak it is Peruc, of Perac the root, which also signifieth to Redeem.  M. WALKER. 
That translation is senseless, and against all reason: for God never appointed that men's sinnes should be redeemed.  M. SMITH. 
Your proof indeed is without sense, or reason: it is that idle Petitio principij, of which you have been often accused, yet for mere want of wit can never avoid. Have you no better stuff to allege then this?  M. WALKER. 
Yes, if you understand, that Nabuchod●nozor ● wicked Heathen King should by his own righteousness redeem himself from his sins, you make Daniel a teacher of Heresy, and blasphemy.  M. SMITH. 
You are spitefully bend still to wrangle, or else you must needs know I understand it not of his own righteousness. For Daniel exhorteth him to frequent almsdeeds, which first by way of congruity might procure God's favour, and after deservedly redeem, or satisfy for the punishment of his sins. Which is a heavenly point of faith, inculcated again by the Holy Ghost in the Proverbs, By mercy, and truth iniquity is redeemed, or purged, as 
Proverb. c. 16. v. 6▪  your own Bible readeth: though that which followeth in your Pamphlet be a most horrible, and 
M. Walker in his printed sum pag. 25▪ Ibidem.  monstrous slander, that Papists go on in known sin, in hope of absolution by confession, and penance; when we constantly teach, that neither of them can avail, without detestation of sin, and full purpose of amendment. To this slander is joined another of his notable leasings, reporting me to have said, that Peruc signifies only to redeem; whereas I confessed at the beginning, that it signified to destroy, redeem, break in pieces, break asunder, but never to cease to do, or break off a work, as their translation runneth.  Sir Edward Harwood. 
Well, if the word doth import, to break in pieces, and we have, to break off, then me thinks the difference seems but small. This was that he spoke: but he said not, as M. Walker outfacingly belieth him, that M. Smith had failed much in his proof: he was of a more mild, and generous disposition, than ever to let fall any such speech.  M. SMITH. 
The less the difference may seem, the more pernicious if it jar, as this doth, from the harmony of Faith: for the word in his native sense betokeneth 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 allegeth, Break off the golden ear●ngs etc. 
Exod. 3●. v. 2.  to wit, with abolishing, with destroying them to that, & changing them to another use. And much more in Genesis, where it is not, as he most fraudulently corrupteth it, Thou shalt break off his yoke etc. 
Genes. 27. v. 40.  but as the Protestant Translation readeth, Thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck. So that Peru●, break, is referred to the Yoke, as before to the Earring; (off) is added by phrase of speech▪ Likewise the very term of yoke declareth how he was to break it off as a cumbersome, and hateful burden, with dislike and detestation, to be eased of the same. No such manner of speech is usual in the place we handle, and the case itself is far otherwise. For a ma may break off, or interrupt a business for a time, which he liketh, approveth, and meaneth after, when opportunity serveth, to prosecute, and accomplish. Therefore though your English Copy beareth the sound of a small corruption, yet the treachery is great, and depravation most viperous; because it taketh away all reference to the demolition, redemption, and expiation of sins, by satisfactory works of Penance, and Almsdeeds; which the true meaning of the word enforceth, and the Holy Ghost thereby intended. To conclude, if the Hebrew word had been doubtful, as it is not; then the Originals of Greek, and Latin, might have directed you, without seeking a new sense, and feigned signification of your own.  Sir Edward Harwood, and M. Walker. 
Not so, for we have nothing to do with the Greek, and Latin text, they are both corrupted.  M. SMITH. 
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 
Walk. in his printed Sum. pag. 27.  base estimation or rejection of it: Though M. Walker hath so bad a conscience, as to misreport them all, and so virulent a pen, as upon his own lying report, to accuse me, of vanity, inconstancy, malice, and wickedness, joined with wi●full ignorance. But these are mild, and modest words in respect of other most opprobrious speeches, and spiteful terms, which elsewhere flow from the bitterness of his hart: to which I now answer once for all The disciple is not above his Master, nor the Servant above his Lord: If 
Matth. ●0. v. 24. 25.  they have called the Good man of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household? It is no dishonour for me to be reviled with the servants of his house, if it be no ignominy for M. Walker to be one of their Revilers. Howbeit, as soon as he had disgorged those uncivil terms, he peremptorily writeth.  M. WALKER. 
It is the judgement of all the best learned, both jewish Rabbins and Christians, that the pricks, vowels, & 
Helias Levita in Praefat. Massorethi Rabbi David Kimki in Psal. 60. Galat. l. 1. c. 8. & ultimo. Genebrar. in suo Chronol. ad an 476 Lindan. de oped. gen. l. 1. cap. 6. Senensis l. 8. haer. 13. Arias Montanus in Praefa. ad Biblia.  accents were from the beginning.  M. SMITH. 
What? Of all the best learned? Little is your reading, or great is your forgetfulness: for the best learned without exception say the contrary; as not only Helias Levita, but Rabbi David Kimki, whom Calvin, and Beza much commend; and diverse other Rabbins are of the same opinion, cited by Galatinus, who evidently proveth this point out of their own writings: with whom Genebrard, Lindan, Sixtus Senensis, Arias Montanus, and innumerable others accord: The words of Arias Montanus be these: The Grammarians strive about the antiquity, and first inventors of these vowels, and pricks and the strife as yet remaineth in debate: Some referring this thing to the time, and industry of Esdras; others to the School at Tiberiades famous ●o● the resort and meeting of learned 
Viv● ho habeat, illud omnibus in constanti, certeue est, vocalium, notarum inventionem consonantibus Haebraicis minimè esse coequam.  men: Howsoever thi●●e, that is constant and certain amongst all, the invention o● the vowels, pricks, not to be of equal standing, and antiquity with the Hebrew Consonants. Lo than this is constant, and certain amongst all.  M. WALKER. 
But look Deuteronomy c. 17. v. 18. and there it is plainly testified, that there was a book of the law called Mishne, which signified double, because it was the law written in the double form, both with letters, and pricks.  Another Priest, M. Smith's Companion, 
You show yourself very ignorant, for Mishne 
This was his saying, though M. Walker setteth a false gloss upon it. Athanas▪ in synop. Aug. q. 49. Theod. in Deutrono. q. 1. Cornesius de Lapid● sup. Deut. in proem.  doth not signify in that place the Original Scriptures, nor holy Scriptures at all: but the deposition or repetition of the Original, and prime law contained in Exodus, Leviticus, and N●meri, which are only part of the Scripture called Deuteronomium, as S. Athanasius, S. Augustine, and Theodoretus witness. Now to say, that the whole Scripture is called by the name of Mishne, is as absurd, as to maintain that the whole Scripture is called Deuteronomy. And out of that bare word Mishne to infer, the Scriptures to have been primarily written with pricks, is most ridiculous, because even in the place you cite, it is as much distinguished from the first and primary Scripture, as a copy from the original, a pattern from the Prototypon, and is expounded joined with Thorah, a doubled, or second Law.  M. WALKER. 
You contradict you● self, in affirming that Mishne signifieth the doubled law, which is the Scripture, and yet not the original Scripture.  M. Smith's Companion. 
No good Sir, It is no more a contradiction to deny Mishne Thorah, or Deuteronomy to import the Scripture indeterminately, and yet to grant it to be a part of the Scripture; then to deny you to be a true Minister of Christ, and yet to grant you to be a Minister: for Mickra indeed is the common word, by which the jews express the Scripture.  M. WALKER. 
I answer, that the Scripture hath diverse names, it is called Thorah, Chethab, Mickra, and Mishne.  M. Smith's Companion. 
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 allege no text, or testimony to prove that it betokeneth the Scripture. But see Pagnine, and you shall find that the word never expresseth any Scripture at all, but with the word Thorah, as Mishne Thorah, it betokeneth a repetition, or second law, as Deutero. 17. 18. joshua 8. 20. But where Thorah is left out, it signifieth only the second. Look 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 their names, and Commentaries; yet he could not remember at the meeting, to cite any one of their authorities.  M. SMITH. 
Thus you see M. Walker, how you will be always flinching from the matter, though you be still beaten back to your own shame and confusion. To return therefore 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 redeem, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, Redime doth in Latin (hence Peric signifieth a Redeemer, Purkan Redemption) and so Theodotio, so Vatablus, so S. Jerome, and so all others express the word: wherefore either all texts are falsified, or all are true. If all be false, the Hebrew is tainted with corruption, as well as the Greek and Latin; if all true, your translation is inexcusable, in discording from the truth of all originals, from the version of all the Ancients.  Sir Edward Harwood, with others. 
These Disputations about the Hebrew text, are above our capacity, an● filter for the Schools. I pray you descend to some more profitable matter, and easier for our understanding.  M. SMITH. 
Upon this motion only, I ceased to rip up 
Some other corruptions briefly urged. 1. Cor. 2. I pray you brethren keep my Ordinances. The like ●. Thessa. 2. Math. 15. Why do you transgress the Commandments of God, by your Traditions? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Luc. 20. & 〈◊〉. but 2. Thessal. 1. they translate it truly. Psal. 118. v. 112. ad Rom. 5. v. 17. 18. 21.  the residue of Protestant corruptions, but not because neither I, nor my Companion had any more to say, as M. Walker according to his fashion perversely relateth, for infinite other depravations of theirs are obvious, and apparent; as the fraudulency they use in translating one, and the same Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Traditio: For in such texts as mention good and wholesome Traditions, they in lieu of Traditions, read Ordinances: where the Scripture speaketh of such as be naughty, or frivolous, they in hatred of our Apostolical Traditions, carefully set down 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 Heaven, & Hell, they warily turn it into Grave, 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 Proverbes v. 24. Hell beneath. I might have urged how they juggle with the word worthy, or make worthy, against the merit of works; how they change justifications into Statutes, justice into Righteousness, against inherent justice; how they sometime forsake the Hebrew and retire to the Greek, as in the 9 of Proverbes v. 2. Wisdom hath mingled her wine: because the Hebrew word Masecha wholly favoureth the ancient mingling of water and wine in the Chalice, which the Fathers urge as necessary, and Protestants utterly neglect, they fly to the ambiguity of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which may signify to pour out, as well as to mingle: & so did they always read before his Majesty's Correction. Otherwhiles they leave the Greek, and have recourse to the Latin, as Act. 13. though the Greek be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they sacrificing 
Act. 13. v. 2.  to our Lord, as Erasmus translateth it, yet your translation still runneth according to the Latin they ministering unto our Lord, because you cannot abide that word, although written by God, which doth any way relish of the Sacrifice of the Mass. These and a thousand such of your guileful sleights I might have alleged; howbeit to condescend to the reasonable motion of Sir Edward Harwood and the rest, I willingly omitted them, and returned to prove the second part of my first Antecedent which you denied.  The Antecedent was this. 
The Word of God preached in the Church of England is corrupted with errors, and the men that deliver, it are subject to errors.  
The former part is already proved by the manifest adulterations of your Bible before mentioned.  The second Part. 
That your men also are subject to error, I convince by the confession of M. Reynoldes, M. Whitaker, 
Reynolds in his 2. Conclus. Whitaker. contro, ●.  and the most learned Protestants of our time; who expressly write, that the true Church, which they suppose theirs to be, may err, and all her Pastors in some points of faith, even necessary to salvation.  
Therefore your men, your Preachers, and Pastors are subject to error.  M. WALKER. 
I grant, that the true Church may err for a time insome one fundamental point necessary to salvation; & this I affirm of the Protestant Church, of our Church of England: Ground what you can upon this.  M. SMITH. 
Though some of the Catholics hereupon cried out, We have enough, enough, let us leave of our dispute, yet to give more full satisfaction to the Protestant Gentlemen, who perceived not so soon the absurdity of this Paradox, or folly of M. Walker, in granting that very part of my Antecedent which before he denied, I proceeded a little further, and argued thus against him.  
If your Church may err in one point necessary to salvation, it may as well err in another, and so can propose nothing undoubtedly to be believed, as an article of faith. Which inference though M. Walker denied, and with many cavillations laboured to divert, yet it evidently followeth, as I thus declare.  
That Church which hath not sufficient authority to persuade all the mysteries of faith she proposeth, to be infallibly true, can propose nothing undoubtedly to be believed as an article of faith.  
But your Church which may err now in one point, now in another, at least for a time, hath not sufficient authority to persuade all the mysteries of faith she proposeth to be infallibly true.  
Therefore, your Church can propose nothing undoubtedly to be believed, as an article of faith.  
For seeing the Articles in which your Church may err, are not specified by God, nor known to your followers; they may justly fear, and suspect least those she now proposeth, be some of them, in which she may err: But with fear and suspicion no faith can stand, nothing can she propose which ought undoubtedly to be believed, as S. Augustine in the like case most excellently discourseth, saying: How can he be believed who thinketh he may 
Aug. lib. de mendacio cap. 8.  sometime tell a lie; for perchance he than lieth, when he commandeth us to believe him. So you that hold, your Church may sometime err, have cause to doubt, lest then perchance she erreth, when she commandeth you to follow her doctrine. If cause to doubt, no cause to obey, no cause to credit her. Nay it implieth contradiction we should with divine faith give credit unto her: For by faith we are assured, 
faith & doubtfulness cannot comply together of one & the same thing.  that the thing she teacheth cannot possibly be otherwise, than we believe: By doubtfulness, or suspicion we mistrust they may be otherwise: Else why do we doubt? Why do we suspect? Therefore it is a manifest implicancy, and irreconciliable contradiction, that faith and doubtfulness should consist together; that we should be undoubtedly persuaded of the truth proposed, yet stagger and misdoubt of the truth thereof; as you have just cause to do, as long as you maintain, that your Church may deceive you.  
Besides, to prove out of the former Paradox, that your Church is not the true Church, I framed these Syllogisms.  
That Church which may err for a time, in a fundamental point, necessary to salvation, hath no certainty for that tyme.  
Yours is such.  
Ergo, it is no true Church. Again.  
That Church which may err for a time, in a fundamental point, necessary to salvation, hath not sufficient means of salvation, for that tyme.  
Yours is such.  
Ergo, it is no true Church.  M. WALKER. 
These arguments are sophistical, and faulty, because they have four terms. With the same Censure he discarded other Syllogisms as crazy & imperfect, he denied to answer any Enthymeme: and such was his fear of hazarding both cause and credit, as he rejected also a true, and perfect Syllogism in mood, in figure, as the Roman Catholic, whom he mentioned, maintained against him. Though he did not renounce his salvation if it were not true, which M. Walker after his wont fashion most injuriously reporteth of him.  M. SMITH. 
Your cause lieth a bleeding, when you thus begin to wrangle about Syllogisms; yet these two which I have here repeated, with the third which immediately followeth in your Sum, are such as no Scholar would reprehend. For the conclusion which seems to make the Syllogism, & consists of four terms, supposeth another Syllogism virtually involved, which to avoid tediousness I did not express: After which manner all Enthymenes are justified, and allowed, notwithstanding one of the premises be suppressed, and the conclusion be immediately inferred. A thing very usual among the learned in all Universities, especially when the Disputant is either straitened with shortness of time, or the Auditory overwearied, as now it was, with the cumbersome delay of 4. long hours, by reason of your manifold digressions, idle repetitions, impertinent discourses, over-tedious writings etc. But you who never appeared in any such schools, never peeped out of Aristotle's Parua's, no marvel 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ ●. parua.  though you could not apprehend that kind of arguing. I pardon your ignorance, I bear with your dulness, & pass to those Syllogisms in mood and figure, which you could not gainsay.  
That Church which hath not the whole, entire, and infallible faith, hath not means sufficient to salvation.  
But that Church which may err for a time, in a fundamental point, hath not the whole, entire, and infallible faith.  
Therefore, it hath not means sufficient to salvation.  M. WALKER. 
I deny your Minor, and do put you to prove, that the Church which may err, hath not the whole and infallible faith.  M. SMITH. 
If it do err, it hath not whole & entire faith; if it may err it hath not infallible faith: as thus I prove.  
That Church which is subject to error, in a fundamental point, hath not the whole and infallible faith. But that Church, which may err in such a point, is subject to error.  
Therefore, it hath not whole, and infallible faith.  M. WALKER. 
I must tell you▪ that your Minor proposition is false. For a Church may be so far subject to error, that it may have a possibility to err, yet not be void of the whole and infallible faith. It is one thing to be subject to error, and another to err actually: We hold, that our Church may err, but do not think that it doth err in any fundamental point.  M. SMITH. 
If it may err, if it hath a possibility to err, it is as bad as if it did err, in respect of the certainty which faith requireth: for thus I argue.  
That Church which is fallible in a fundamental 
M. Walker was afraid this last argument of mine, should come to light, therefore he purposely suppresseth it in his Sum  point of faith, is not also infallible in the whole and entire faith.  
But your Church which is subject to error, which hath a possibility to err, in a fundamental point of faith, is fallible.  
Therefore, it is not also infallible in the whole & entire faith: Unless it may be in one and the same thing both fallible, and infallible, subject to error, and not subject, which is impossible.  
M●●revpon I concluded, that sith the Protestant Church is fallible in faith, it hath not any true, & supernatural faith: if it hath no true faith, it cannot be a true Church, which were the two things I was engaged to prove: and so I have fully discharged my task, to the satisfaction I hope of all that be present. For M. Walker being caught in this net of contradiction, had no means to escape, unless, as S. Augustine writeth of Maximin●s the Arrian Bishop, By talking much, and nothing to the 
Aug. count. Maxim. lib. 2.  purpose, he might seem at lest to answer, who was not able to hold his peace. Therefore some of his companions entreated he might argue a while, to see whether he could have better fortune in impugning our Church, than he had in defending theirs. But before I relate the disputation he begun, I think it expedient for the instruction of such as are better conversant in Divinity, to unfold certain Theological Principles, or Articles of faith, whereby the force of my former argument, the truth of our doctrine, the folly of protestancy, and the enormity of M. Walkers answer, may more apparently be discovered.  
The first Principle is, that Fidei non potest subess● falsum, faith cannot be subject to any falsity: Faith 
Three remarkable principles ●.  is infallible, sith it hath for its former object the prime Verity, or authority of God; it relieth upon his infinite Knowledge, which cannot be deceived in understanding any thing, and upon his infinite Veracity which will not beguile us in testifying an untruth: It is impossible for God to lie, we have a most 
Ad Heb. ●. v. 18.  strong comfort. But as it is impossible for God to lie, impossible for him to witness that which may be false: So it is impossible for the habit of Faith to incline, or for the act of Faith to assent to that which is liable to any falsehood: As S. Thomas singularly 
8. Thom▪ 1. 2. q. 1. art. 3. & Scholast. 3. dist▪ 24. 25.  well proveth by these 3. Reasons. First, because nothing can belong to the habit or act of faith, except that which appertaineth to their formal object, and in such sort as it is instilled, conveyed, and drawn from thence: Even as no colour can be seen, unless it be garnished with the beams of light. But to prime Verity no falsity can belong, not only any actual falsehood, but not so much as any thing that hath a possibility to be falls; no more than any proneness to evil can appertain to sovereign goodness, or the least shadow of darkness to light inaccessible. Therefore Faith, which hath prime Verity for her object, must not only be free from actual error, but from all lyablenes thereunto, or possibility of erring. Secondly, every act, every habit, is necessarily linked with equal proportion of certainty, or assurance, with the certainty of the object, of which it borroweth its dignity, nature, and form: Wherefore as the prime Verity, and testimony of God; so the habit, and act of Faith, are both infallible. Thirdly, Faith is an intellectual Virtue which doth perfect, & ennoble the faculty of our Understanding, which cannot receive the dye of perfection from any other thing then that which is true, because that only, as all Philosophers teach, is her proper, & peculiar object. Hence it is, that S. Paul describeth Faith 
Ad Heb. 11. v. 1. Dionys▪ de diui. nom. cap. 7. Aug. lib. 13. de Tri●i●. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not only to be the substance, that is, the settled ground, the constant, and stabl● foundation (according to S. Dionysius) of our hope, but also, an argument of things not appearing; that is, a firm assent, a demonstration or Conviction, as S. Augustine saith, of our understanding, 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: Witness S. Athanasius in the beginning of his Creed, Whosoever doth not believe the Catholic faith wholly & inviolably, he shall undoubtedly perish: And S. Leo: A great safeguard is faith entire, true faith, in 
Leo. ser. 4. in solemn. Natiu. Ephes. 4. Mar. 16. v. 16.  which nothing can be added by any, nothing detracted; because unless faith be one, it is no faith, the Apostle averring, One Lord, One faith. To which purpose our Saviour himself avoucheth: He that beleiueth not, shall be condemned: that is; he that beleiueth not every Article, expressly or implicitly, he that beleiueth not the whole sum of Christian doctrine, shall incur the forfeiture of his salvation. For as all things are to be observed whatsoever Christ commanded; 
Math. 28. v. 20.  so all things to be believed whatsoever he taught: and in such manner, that albeit the mysteries in themselves are some of less, some of greater moment, some necessary, some contingent; yet as they are testified, & revealed by God, they ought all with equal certainty, with the same surety to be credited & embraced; because God in all things little or great, necessary or contingent, is equally great, & of infallible credit: Whereby every Article is so fast riveted, and conjoined one with the other, in such uniform & due proportion, as they make, saith S. Gregory Nazianzen, A Chain truly 
Greg. ora. 37. Amb. ad ●. 9 Lucae l. 6:  golden, and sovereign. From which, if your withdraw but one, you withdraw your salvation, as S. Ambrose writeth.  
The third principle is, that the ordinary means 
The 3. principle.  of attaining the whole and infallible faith, is from the mouth of the Church, from the lips of her 
Rom. 5. v. 17.  Priests, because faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ: to wit, by the word expounded and preached unto us, by his lawful Pastors: for it 
Ibid. v. 14.  goeth immediately before, How shall they hear without à Preacher, and how shall they preach unless they be sent? Whereupon it necessarily ensueth, that if they be sent from God to teach his heavenly doctrine, if we be bound to believe upon their testification and preaching, their preaching must be certain, their testification undeceivable, that we may securely 
1. Thes. 2. v. 2●  receive the word they deliver; not as the word of men, but as it is indeed the word of God, who by their mouths speaketh, by their testimony sealeth, and witnesseth it unto us; especially seeing he commandeth us to hear them as himself, to obey them as 
Luc. 10.  his Vicegerents, to believe them under penalty of damnation; seeing he giveth them the Holy Ghost, 
joh. 16 & 17. Ephes. 4.  to teach them all truth, to sanctify them in verity, that we be not carried about with any wind of doctrine. Therefore as God cannot immediately by himself, or mediately by any other, deliver that which may be doubtful or uncertain; so much less by the mouth of those his witnesses, his judges, his interpreters, 
In the 3. Part of my An▪ tid. chap. ●. and 6.  by whom he uttereth the Oracles of truth: as I might more fully demonstrate, if I had not already elsewhere uncontrollably evicted and proved the same Yea the very nature and condition of faith, perforce requireth it; for that being an assent of our understanding to things not appearing, that is, not appearing true through the evidence of truth in themselves, or through the light of humane reason, but only by this Authority of God, who testifieth them not immediately, but by the means 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 wavering, their preaching unconstant, they could neither assuredly teach, nor we undoubtedly give credit to that which they propose, 
Whit. cont. 2. q. 4. pag. 221.  as to constant, stable, and immoveable truth. For it is a warrantable position of M. whitaker's; Such as the means be, such of necessity must be the interpretation itself: But the means of interpreting obscure places are uncertain▪ doubtful, and ambiguous: Then it cannot possibly be, but that the interpretation itself is uncertain; if uncertain, then may it be false. But if it may be false, as M. Walker acknowledgeth the interpretation of the Protestants Church may be, it overthroweth the ground of faith, the foundation of Religion. For what else can be, or any of his fellows assign, on which they stay o● anchor the certainty of divine belief? Their particular pastor? Their private spirit? But if their Pastors in general may trip and slumble; how much more, their particular? If the public spirit of their Church be errable, how deceivable is their private? Again, the private spirit is hidden, it cannot be discovered and opened to others, and yet it is open itself to a thousand illusions. Therefore it must be tried by some more known, and certain spirit: What then, do you build upon the voice of God that speaketh in the Scripture? but that voice is no other than 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 own contentions and infinite hersies sprung from thence, bear evident witness. If your reply, that it speaketh inerrably to such a read, and hear it with faith, and humility as they ought; you send me still a roving in the wilderness of uncertainty; for how shall I know who they be, that observe those conditions as they ought? And what is this, as they ought, after your Puritanical, or Caluinian manner?  
Lastly let it be (for this willbe) your last, and poorest refuge, that the true Church of JESUS Christ hath always such well known to him; what is this to you, if you know them not? What if we disprove, as we plainly do, your Church to be his? Where are your humble Readers? your faithful interpreters? Or to yield you the uttermost your can ask, though most impudently begged at our hands; let there be such Readers, such Interpreters among you; either they always infallibly observe the conditions specified, interpreting still a right, and then your Church by their direction, contrary to your Tenent, can never err: Or they fallibly observe them, and so your Church may run astray, it cannot be the pillar of faith, the storehouse of truth, the voice, or trumpet of supernatural belief; as my last two Syllogisms printed by M. Walker undeniably conclude: which as long as they shall remain registered in his Pamphlet, so long shall it bear the record of his own disgrace; so long shall it proclaim the victory of our Catholic cause; so long shall the Protestant Church lie panting in the dust, without life, without strength, without vital breath? Now let us behold what new life M. Walker can breathe into it, to revive 
This argument crosseth itself in terms, for if the Church erred in a fundamental point, it was not true; if true, it erred not.  it again? Marry, that a true Christian Church may err for a time, in some one fundamental point, necessary to salvation, he disputeth thus.  M. WALKER. 
That which the ancient Apostolical Church might do, other succeeding Churches may do, with the same success.  
But the Apostolical Church might err, and did err in a main point, and yet have a true faith, and was a true Church.  
Ergo, Other Churches also.  M. SMITH. 
I deny the Minor. The Apostolical Church did not err in a main point of Faith.  M. WALKER. 
The act of Christ's Resurrection from the dead taught in Scripture, is a fundamental point of Faith. The Apostolical church did err in it. Ergo etc.  M. SMITH. 
I distinguish the Minor. The Apostles erred, or rather were ignorant of the act of Christ's Resurrection, as a matter of fact, I grant the Minor; as an Article of faith, I deny it: for it was indeed a divine verity, a true matter of fact at that time, yet no article of faith.  M. WALKER. 
Behold Gentlemen he denyeth the Resurrection to be an Article of faith.  M. Smith's Companion. 
You wilfully abuse him; he denyeth it not absolutely, but only for that time, because it was not then sufficiently promulgated.  M. WALKER. 
Reach me the Bible, I will show the contrary in 
Io. 20. v. 9  express words of Scripture. So opening the book he read, how some of the Apostles knew not the Scriptures, that he must rise from the dead: how our Saviour 
Mar. 16. v. 14.  appeared to the eleven Apostles, and upbraided their incredulity and hardness of hart▪ because they believed not them who had seen him after he was risen.  
At this Sir William Harington holding up his hands, said: Oh, I protest I never heard any point so plainly proved!  M. SMITH. 
Proved? he hath proved nothing. For I grant the Apostles were slow in believing, dull in understanding the resurrection of Christ; but I say, it was not then an article of faith, which they were obliged expressly to believe, because it was not so clearly promulgated, and proved unto them, as to bind them under the pain of Heresy, or note of Infidelity, at that time to embrace.  A Protestant Gentleman. 
Say you so? Was it not expressly revealed in Scripture? sufficiently promulgated by Christ himself?  M. SMITH. 
I acknowledge the revelation of scripture, the promulgation of Christ sufficient in themselves; yet not in respect of the Apostles capacity; for they were yet rude and weak of understanding, they had not as yet that inward illustration and light of the holy Ghost, those outward motives, and arguments of credibility, which did bind them to give infallible assent to so deep a mystery. They assented and believed, that all was true which Christ said, all true which the Scriptures revealed concerning his Resurrection; yet they knew not whether the sense and meaning of those passages were to be taken truly or enigmatically, properly or figuratively. Of this only were they ignorant; and this ignorance proceeded from their imbecility and weakness, and not from the insufficiency of holy Scripture.  
The Gentleman satisfied with this, & M. Walker 
M. Walker silenced with the first distinction made against him.  gravelled with the former answer, his reasoning was at an end: howbeit his brawling would have no end, for the foresaid 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 Syllogism, or Enthimeme against it. But being in a monstrous rage, because his pride could not brook such a fowl overthrow, I thought good to give way to his chafing fit, and so departed with these very words: Well, well; I perceive 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 answer that I had given, said.  M. Smith's Companion. 
It is not much to be marvelled, that the Apostles at the first conceived not aright the Resurrection of Christ: for the Apostolical Church was then in her infancy; it was newly raised, not wholly finished; begun, but not perfected; The evangelical law was delivered, yet not fully established.  
And can this undergo the censure of any other doctrine, then sound and orthodoxal? Or could M. Walker justly vaunt of any allegation he brought against M. Smith? Then read and detest the arrogant style of an heretical Impostor, who blusheth not to print, after his confusion, these flourishing words.  M. WALKER. 
M. Smith being put to silence with those proofs, 
Lo the vanity of a vanquished minister.  the other Priest to make us this breach, fled to another shift, and denied the Apostles to have been a Church at that time, because the Holy Ghost was not yet come down, nor the evangelical law revealed.  M. SMITH. 
If you were not already returned in open Court for a wilful liar, forger, false Prophet, and Priest of Baal, your words might bear some show of credit: but in so much as you are notoriously defamed for such an one, I only entreat the Reader to judge, whether I were silenced, or you; whether my Companion fled to another shift, or defended the answer which I gave: Whether you have not writhed his words to a faulty strain, of purpose to reprove them. For he denied not the Apostles to have been at that time a Church, nor that the evangelical law was revealed; but that it was not promulgated; that the Church was not yet perfect, or law complete. For how could it be then fully complete, when it wanted diverse gifts and endowments, necessary to the entire compliment and perfection thereof? When it wanted the spiritual comfort, and inward Unction 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 establishment of a law? When it wanted the gift of tongues, most requisite for the conversion of all Nations? When it wanted that vigour, or strength of verity, of which our Saviour said: Tarry in the City till you be endued with power from high? How then M. Walker, how could your conscience serve you to carp, or reprehend that saying of his, strengthened and supported by such warrantable proofs? To pervert and disorder the whole frame and method of your own disputation? How could it serve you, 1. To charge me 
Are not these Ministera wicked children? a lying seed▪  with terming the Apostles ignorance or hardness of hart, an error of forgetfulness? 2. To feign me to say, that the Scriptures had not expressly revealed, how Christ should rise from the dead? 3. To feign, that I entreated you to show it me out of the Gospel? 4. That I persisted still, how the Scriptures had not sufficiently revealed it? All most injurious and hideous lies.  
Notwithstanding these leasings of his, or selfe-devised fancies, he mustreth a band of three several probations, and graceth the last with the admiration or solemn acclamation of one of his Assistants, howbeit it was used upon another occasion. Such is every where the juggling of that vainglorious Sycophant: yet he dischargeth me from the labour of refuting his arguments, sith they are nothing else but engines raised to batter the forts of his own conceits: which nevertheless he suffereth not to fall to the ground without the sound of his fellow's applause, praising himself for overcoming himself, in such a skirmish, in which he is both the assayler, and the assailed, he the Master, and he the maystered, idly conquering, and basely conquered both at once.  
Moreover he reproveth me for making a strange distinction between a thing, as he termeth it, and itself: because I said, that the act of Christ's Resurrection was a true matter of fact, a divine Verity, yet no article of faith, which the Apostles than were bound expressly to believe. But is this so strange? I will give you an instance of the like strange distinction. The validity of baptism ministered by Heretics was always a divine Verity, always a truth sufficiently revealed in holy Scriptures, in the first of S. john, and the third 
joan. 1. v. 33. Luc. 3. v. 10.  of S. Luke, where it is written: It is he that baptizeth: Christ is the principal agent, whose action cannot be frustrated by the faults of his instrument; yet this was not always an article of faith, until it was publicly defined by the Consistory of God's Church; which caused Vincentius Lirynensis to free them from heresy who defended the contrary before; to condemn such as persisted in upholding it after the definition; his words are these: O wonderful change and alteration of things! The 
Vincent contra Propha. cap. 11.  Fathers of one and self same opinions are adjudged Catholics, the followers Heretics; the masters are acquitted, the disciples condemned; the writers of books shall be Sons of the kingdom, the maintainers of the same shall be cast into hell▪  
Finally M. Walker for his upshot, relateth the commendation a Catholic gave him of his noble conquest after he was thus discomfited. I reprint his words, which he for very shame disguiseth under the cloak of a third person.  M. WALKER. 
When the Priests were very willing to make an end, and the Protestant Gentlemen seemed well satisfied, and made them ready to depart; One of the Roman Catholics 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 given him a sharp wit and ready tongue, and therefore no marvel though he prevailed, and made a good cause seem bad when he opposed it, and a bad cause seem good, when he defended it.  M. SMITH. 
Fie, fie, M. Walker! Are you so greedy of a little vaynglory as thus to blazon with your own pen (for you penned the whole sum though you mask it under another vizard) the false lustre of your supposed talents? Of such as never were acknowledged by any of your Pewfellows in Cambridge, much less extolled by the mouth of a Catholic? For I enquired of the Gentleman who conferred with you, & he solemnly protesteth before God and man, and is ready, if need require, to confirm it with his Oath, yea and iuridically to diuulge it to all the word: First, that he never gave you those high titles of commendation, which you set down; Secondly, that the Courtly compliments he cast upon you were merely in jest by the figure of Ironia, as the Wisdom of God jested at Adam after his fall, saying: Lo Adam is become as it were one of us, knowing good 
Gen. 3. v. 22.  and evil: yet such was your quick and subtle wit so worthy of admiration, as it conceived that to be spoken in good earnest, which was uttered in derision, to laugh you to scorn.  
By which, and by all the former passages, every indifferent man may easily perceive, 1. How poor a Religion Protestancy is, and how weak a Patron here she had, who could bring no better props to sustain it, than knavery, fraudulency, lies, and falsifications. 2. How Thraso-lyke M. Walker boasteth of the Victory, and endeth the scene of his fabulous discourse with that triumphantsentence, Magna est veritas & praevalet; Great is▪ 
Esdr. 3. c. 4. v. 41.  truth and it doth prevail. For unless salshood may be enthroned in the chair of Truth, and Vanity possess the seat of Verity; far, tootoo far is he from prevailing, who hath been convicted, and notably disgraced with so many tergiversations, digressions, forgeryes, and gross absurdityes; who hath been driven to such shameful begging of the principal question; to grant that after, which before he had denied; to deny that now, which he formerly granted; yea to a flat ●ntrariety and plain contradiction▪ the greatest ●yles a Scholar can take: He I say, who hath been ●ot only vanquished and defeated, but chased out ●f the field at every encounter. In which nevertheesse if he had stood, and upheld his quarrel (as God forbid he should;) seeth he not what horrible crimes he had laid to the Apostles charge? What ●famies on their flock? Seeth he not what a breach ●e had made in Zion? What ruins in his own jerusalem? For by attaching the Apostolical Church of erring in a fundamental point, manifestly revealed in holy Scripture, and often intimated by the Son of God, he attacheth it of Infidelity, he enditeth it of Heresy, and wholly depriveth it of the happy means of salvation. For the entire profession of saving truth (as Calvin, Field, and other 
Calvin. ●. 4. Instit. c. 2. §. 1. Feild in 2. book of the Church c. 3. & 4.  prime Protestants confess with us) is necessary to the state of salvation, which the Apostolical Church wanted, when it erred, according to him, in that essential article of Christ's Resurrection; it wanted then the sovereign means of attaining eternal bliss; and so could not be the spouse of Christ, the gate of life, the temple of God, or Church of his beloved son; without all-saving truth, it is impossible to be his saving Church. The same is more strongly confirmed by the dotage itself. M. Walker very dotingly laboured to prove (or else proved nothing for his purpose,) That the Apostolic Church erred in a fundamental point necessary to salvation; For if it was necessary, the Church could not be saved without it; if it might be saved without it, it was not an article at that time necessary to be believed.  
Neither doth he only bereave that pure and primitive flock of the riches of bliss, of the integrity of faith in that one he specified, but by the same argument, in all other points of belief. For as by one mortal sin the Virtue of charity is wholly expelled, according to S. james, 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 faith is utterly lost, which S. Paul teacheth, affirming, that Hymenaus and Alexander made ship wrack of their faith, albeit they only denied one sole article, to wit, the future Resurrection of our flesh. Which the Father's 
Aug. l. de har. ●eron. ●du. Lucif. c. ●. Whitak. cont. 2. q. ●. c. 1●.  witness, when they avouch, that such as fall into Heresy, are degraded of the dignity and right of Christianity. Which D. Whitaker also approveth, saying: If any one fundamental point of doctrine be removed, the Church presently falleth. Whereupon it followeth, that the Apostolical Church was presently buried in her own ruins; that the Apostles made ship wrack of their faith; that they were no christians when they believed not the Resurrection of Christ, if then they were bound to receive it as a fundamental article of their belief. Nay it followeth hereon, that the whole fouled of Christ (for it was wholly no doubt enwrapped in the Apostles error) became (o monstrous impiety and most hellish consequence!) became I say, a heard 
Note the blasphemles, which ensue of M. Walkers argument: and the misery of Protestans who cannot make their false Church true, unless they make the true Church false.  of Miscreants, a band of Infidels, a den of Apostates. The chaste and undefiled spouse of Christ (I dread to think it) fell to be an Adulteress; his pure Virhin, the harlot of Satan. And because that which befell the Apostolic Church may by M. Walkers own Logic, befall in like manner unto all other Churches; the Protestants Church, not only by mere possibility, but actually also may be stained with Heresies, tainted with Apostasy, blinded with Infidelity, wholly revolt and fall from Christ. And if once it may do so, we can at no time (as I have already declared) be infallibly certain, that then it doth not so; we may always doubt, or fear at least, that now it doth so.  
On the other side, because our Saviour testifieth of his Church, that it cannot possibly be divorced from him, that it is an everlasting Kingdom, 
Osee 2. Dan. 2. v. 44. Luc. 1. Matth. 16. 2. Corinth. 11. Cypr. tom. ●. epist. 73.  not possible to be overcome, not by the gates of hell, that it is guarded by the Holy Ghost, never 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 adulteress, saith S. Cyprian: Therefore the Protestants Church, which may really be naught, may actually fall, and prostitute herself to some filthy or distoyall error, can by no means be the true Spouse, the true Church, the true Kingdom, or Camp of Christ; nor enjoy the dowryes, possess the treasures of his inerrable Truth.  
FINIS.   

Laus Deo, Deique genitrici Mariae.