THE SUM OF A DISPUTATION, BETWEEN Mr. WALKER Pastor of St. john Euanglists in Watling-street London; and a popish Priest, calling himself Mr. Smith, but indeed Norrice, assisted by other Priests and Papists.  
HELD IN THE PRESENCE OF some worthy Knights; with other Gentlemen of both Religions.  
Printed. 1624.   

The sum of a Disputation bebetweene Mr. Walker, Pastor of St john Evangelists in Watling street in London: And a popish Priest, calling himself Mr. Smith, but indeed Norrice, assisted by other Priests and Papists; May last 1623. held in the presence of some worthy Knights, with other Gentlemen of both Religions.  
The occasion of the Disputation.  
SIr William Harington Knight, having a Kinsman of the Romish Catholic Religion, by much reasoning with him, and many persuasions had brought him to wavering, 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 settling and hardening of him in the popish religion, told him that the Protestant Church of England unto 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 whatsoever into any convenient place of meeting, and he would by disputation, and by invincible arguments prove against him before their faces, and in their hearing, that English Protestants had neither Church nor faith. Sir William Harrington did take his offer, upon condition that he would answer to such questions as the Divine which he would bring should propound against the Romish religion; it was agreed; the day and place apppointed. Whereupon Sir William requesting a reverend Doctor of his acquaintance to take the charge upon him; he being to preach in his charge upon 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 upon a day's 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 he would dispute upon against the Priests; he gave 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 Peter's being Bishop of Rome is a forged fable contrary to the Scriptures.  
These positions Sir William Harrington sent to the Priest, that he might arm himself for the defence: The next day Mr. Walker came to Sir William's lodgings to dinner, and accompanied him and Sir Edward Harwood, with some other Gentlemen to a private house by the Thames side, where they found some Romish Catholic Gentlemen, and they said Smith with other Priests. Before they entered into disputation, Mr. Smith alias Norrice, called Master Walker a side, and desired that the disputation might be performed lovingly and sweetly with all mildness, and without bitter words or biting speeches. Mr. Walker answered, that he desired to bite and gall no adversary but with sound reasons, which do most commonly cut to the quick, such as defend errors: as for other speeches, he promised for his part to be mild or sharp, according to the behaviour of his Adversaries. And thus they proceed to a formal manner of disputation, the one sitting down 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 upper Parlour, But first Mr. Walker desired a Bible▪ unto which they might appeal, and by which testimonies of Scriptures; which both parties alleged might be tried; whereupon there were two Bibles brought, and agreed upon; the one a vulgar Latin, which the Counsel of Trent, and the whole Romish Church holds to be most authentical; the other an English Bible, for the standers by to look upon. Then Mr. Smith alias Norrice, begins first with an apology for himself, telling the gentlemen that he had of late by reason of some bodily infirmity, been forced to take Physic, and to use a diet drink, and therefore if his memory should fail, or if pain in his head should force him to break off abruptly, desired them to bear with him, and to have him excused; By which he seemed wisely to provide before hand for a less shameful flight, if he found the fight too hot and sharp for him to be endured. Mr. Walker on the other side desired, that they might go to it hand to hand, and but one speak at once for avoiding of confusion; that the disputation might be in short syllogisms: and desired also that the Arguments & the answers might be writ down, for preventing all false relation and misreports afterward, and withal, did put it to the Adversary's choice, whether he would oppose or answer first? Mr. Smith desired, that he might first dispute upon his own questions, and promised that afterwards he would answer Mr. Walker, disputing upon his questions: It was agreed upon; And thereupon he putting off his hat, and crossing his face and breast, began to speak to Mr. Walker as followeth.  Mr. Smith, alias Norrice. 
Sir, I have here received three questions from you, which you have taken upon you to prove by Argument, I have here written down, and will relate them unto you: First you say you will prove 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 less to be disputed or answered; they are delivered in terms very unseemly and unmannerly: for what can be more unfit or unseemly than this, that you should call the holy Father the Pope Antichrist, and the Church of Rome the whore of Babylon now in these days, when it pleaseth the King's Majesty to give the Pope that honour, as to send and sue to his holiness for a dispensation for the marriage of thr Prince his son: I pray you therefore let us have no more of these questions, but let us have some other, or else propound them in other terms, as that the Church of Rome is not the true Church or the like: As you see I have done, in that I have used milder words in my questions: holding that you protestants in England, have no Church nor faith.  Mr. Walker. 
Seeing it is your pleasure thus to speak at large in loose speech, and not in strict Syllogism, I will answer you in your kind. First, I marvel that you are not ashamed to slander the King's Majesty with honouring of the Pope, by suing to him for dispensation, which we all know he will never do; because he hath not only said, that he is Antichrist, but also publicly in his learned writings proved him so to be, and the Romish Church to be the whore of Babylon. I warrant you our King will marry his Son and ask the Pope no leave, if the other party will adventure it as well as he. It is most intolerable, that you should so boldly slander his Majesty.  
Secondly, for the terms of my questions, which you call unmannerly, they are the same which it pleaseth God's spirit to use in the holy Scriptures; and his holiness hath in his wisdom been pleased to style the Pope and Church of Rome by the same titles, as I shall quickly prove, if you will undertake to answer me. And therefore you are too bold to tax God's spirit of unmannerliness: But perhaps this is a shift of yours, to put off our disputation upon these points which pay you home, with a cleanly excuse of unmannerly terms: yet it shall not serve your turn; for the more unseemly that the questions are, the more disgrace it will be to me, and the more hard task to prove them: 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 do charge us here at home so manifestly contrary to common sense, that we have neither Church nor Faith, when as we believe and profess all holy truths taught in the holy Scriptures, which by yourselves cannot be denied to be Gods infallible word. But I pray you let us leave all loose and idle discourses, and come to a strict form of Disputation, writing down the Arguments and answers which do pass between us. Your task which you have undertaken is to prove, that we have no Church nor Faith: let us hear your arguments briefly.  Mr. Smith. 
Well, that we may come quickly and closely come home to the matter, let me ask you a question, and do you answer me, that I may ground my Arguments upon your own words, and I shall quickly prove against you my assertion, and make the truth of it plainly appear. First I ask whether the true Catholic Church be visible?  M. Walker. 
The true Catholic Church is not visible, neither can it be seen with eyes of any mortal man on earth.  M. Smith. 
Mark Gentlemen, he will deny this Canon: he saith the Catholic Church is not visible, which I will prove to be against all reason.  Mr. Walker. 
Indeed if I should say that it were visible, considering it as it now is, I should speak against all reason; For the greatest part of it being Saints in heaven are without the reach of man's eyes, and cannot be seen.  Mr. Smith. 
You do but equivocate of purpose to decline all Disputation; you know that I mean, not the Church triumphant in heaven, but the Catholic Church militant on earth.  Mr. Walker. 
Nay, rather do you equivocate or worse; for to say that the Catholic Church is militant on earth is as absurd, as to say that all mankind, even the whole universal race of Adam are now living on earth, when reason and experience teach us, that the greatest part are dead, and many also yet unborn: I hope you know that the word Catholic, signifies universal: and therefore the Catholic Church is universal company of the Elect and faithful, and includes in it every one whosoever hath been, or is, or shall be hereafter a true believing member of Christ, and a●l they cannot be seen at once on earth, because they never were altogether on earth. The militant number of them on earth, are the least part of them.  Mr. Smith. 
You do wrangle to avoid Disputation's; I therefore tell you; that by the Catholic militant Church, I understand the true Church of jesus Christ, which all true Christians here on earth ought to hear and obey, as it is the pillar and ground of tru●h: now answer whether you hold that to be visible or invisible?  M. Walker. 
I judge of your meaning by your words, and therefore I cannot conceive this Church which you do speak of, to be the Catholic, that is the universal Church: for every true particular Church, in which every true Christian doth love, and whereof he is a member, is that which he ought to hear and to obey, because by reason of the faithful and elect which are in it, it is the house of God, and the pillar and firmament of truth. Now every such Church is partly visible, and partly invisible.  M. Smith. 
How is it visible, and how is it invisible?  Mr. Walker. 
Every such true Church hath in it elect and faithful men, professing outwardly in word, and practise true Christian religion, who do belong to the Catholic Church, and are true lively members of Christ: It hath also some hypocrites and carnal professors, which do also make an outward show and profession of christianity, but are not truly ingraffed into Christ, by union and communion of the Spirit, neither have the true holy saving Faith, and by consequent are not members of the true Catholic Church. Now the men who profess religion in the Church, and are the members of it, if we consider them as they are men, and as they practise and perform outward duties of christians, as preaching and hearing of the word, administering and receiving the Sacraments public outward worship and such like, they are visible: But as for the election faith, spiritual, and in word graces and devotion in the one sort, by which they are indeed true christians, & belong to the Catholic Church: and the hypocrisy and carnal corruption lurking inwardly in the other sort, by means whereof, they are separated from communion with Christ in spirit, they are things invisible, and to be discerned spiritually, not with bodily eyes. Thus every true Church is partly invisible, to wit, in respect of the spiritual 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 faithful men and hypocrites.  Mr. Smith. 
No sooner was the answer given 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 themselves, never agreeing together in any opinion: He affirmed to the standers by, that Doctor whitaker's, Doctor Reignolds, Mr. Perkins, and many other chief Protestants did ever grant, that the true Catholic Church was visible. Another Priest sitting by, scornfully repeated the name of Perkins, and spoke of him as of a poor silly man, not worthy to be counted among the learned.  Mr. Walker. 
Mr Walker moved with the falsehood of the one, and the scorn of the other, first answered the scorner, that none could count Mr. Perkins silly and unlearned, but either out of ignorance or wilful malice: and that he knew it to be the fashion of popish Priests, outwardly to sleight & vilify before the people, such as do most cut and gall them. To Mr. Smith he answered, that if he would grant that Protestants have a true Church, and the true faith, as truly as that which he affirmed of Doctor whitaker's and the rest was false, he would desire no more for the victory: Yea (saith he) if you have read Doctor whitaker's, you know that he holds as I do; and that you wilfully and falsely father on him things untrue.  Mr. Smith. 
Mr. Smith enraged with this answer, protested what he had said was true, and the more to persuade the standers by, he added more specially, that Doctor whitaker's doth in his writings maintain, that the whole essence of the true Church, consists only in the true preaching of the word, and the right administration of the Sacraments which are things visible.  Mr. Walker. 
Sir I do not love to contend by oaths and protestations, but by proofs. I will here write down your words (which he did, and read them in the hearing of all, and asked if he had not truly written? and all assented he had: Then he proceeded thus.) I doubt not sir, but you have learned Logic, and do know that the definition of a thing doth express 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 do you not grant this?  Mr. Smith. 
I do.  Mr. Walker. 
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 Coelus electorum & fid●lum, A company of elect and faithful men, and he proves against Bellarmine, that none can be seen with the eye to be members of the Catholic Church, because the elect only faithful and godly, belong to it, whose graces are invisible, and not hypocrites and reprobates, as Bellarmine doth hold. Dare you deny this?  Mr. Smith. 
I am sure he holds as I said before, that the whole essence of the Church consists in true preaching of God's word, and in administration of the Sacraments.  Mr. Walker. 
Because I will not spend time in contesting with you; let this be the issue before these Gentlemen: let us send for Doctor whitaker's works, and if I do not show that he doth prove against Bellarmine, that the Catholic Church is invisible, and that this is a main point largely disputed by him, and a main controversy between him and Bellarmine, let me be branded with the mark of a wilful liar, impostore and false prophet. But if I show it presently before them all out of his own writings, then shall you confess yourself a forger and falsifier, an impostor, and a priest of Baal; The Gentlemen all confessed that this was fair play, and desired it might be so. Whereupon Mr. Smith began to draw back, and showed himself unwilling, and much afraid to hazard his credit so quickly, and would gladly have left this point, and fallen into another, But Mr. Walker proceeded on this wise and said: Gentlemen it is true, that Doctor whitaker's 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, and showing that house to be a Tavern, differs from the Tavern itself: and the habit and Cowle of a Monk or Friar, which is the mark of his order, differs from the Monk himself, and is not any part of his essence. I beseech you therefore take notice of the boldness and impudence of popish Priests, how they can snatch here and there a speech out of our learned men's writings, without any understanding of it, and thereby make show, as if they had throughly read those Authors; yea, and can in common talk, and in titles of their printed pamphlets profess, that they have confuted whitaker's, Reignolds, Field, Perkins, and many others, whose books they never durst read throughly, neither have the hardiness to sift any of their main arguments. I assure you, that as you see this which I say here verified, so I find it a common thing among them all.  Mr. Smith. 
Mr. Smith and all his company on his side were very unwilling to insist any longer upon this point, & therefore answered nothing; but presently proceeded to another question, and asked Mr. Walker Whether the whole militant Church on earth may err?  Mr. Walker. 
I answer, that this question is captious and ambiguous, and cannot directly in one word negative or affirmative be 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 diverse points they do differ among themselves: and it is impossible for any man to find out the judgement of them all in every point, as it is impossible to gather them all at once into one place. Secondly, it may be said both that it may err, and also that it cannot err in diverse respects and considerations, if we consider it by itself alone, as it is militant, and according to the militancy and weakness of it (as I may so speak) we grant that it may err, and in every particular part of it, there may be found some errors: but if we consider it according unto the relation and dependence which it hath upon the Triumphant Church, and the assistance which it hath from Christ, his Prophets and Apostles, upon whose doctrine and Scriptures it doth wholly cast itself, and builds all the doctrines of faith,, so it cannot err, for in so doing it doth follow infallible guides: even as the Apostle saith of a man regenerate and borne of God, that he cannot sin, 1 joh. 3. to wit, in the main, against the main precepts of the Gospel, Believe and Repent, for he cannot fall into impenitency and infidelity, because the seed of God, even his holy Spirit abides in him: But that he hath sin, and doth lie if he saith he hath none, to wit, through infirmity and weakness of the flesh: So likewise it is truly said of the true Church, and every part thereof, that as it builds only on the Scriptures, and doth urge no doctrine of faith of necessity to be believed, but such as the Scriptures teach: So it cannot err no more than the Scripture, for this is a work of infallible faith. But because all men living in the Church; have as infirmities of life, so imperfections in judgement, and some perverseness in affections, and therefore may fail in conceiving some doubtful and obscure places of Scripture amiss, or in cleaving not so close to the word as they ought, or following their own affections to much, as we see in all the writings of the Fathers, and in the most part of the general Counsels, in this respect we truly say, that the Church militant may err.  Mr. Smith. 
You do what you can to keep off, and not to come to the point; but I will bring you to it do what you can if you will answer me this question. Whether the who●e militant Church of England may err?  Mr. Walker. 
I answer to this as before, that it is a captious and ambiguous confused question, and that this militant Church as the rest may err and not err, according to the former diverse respects and considerations.  Mr. Smith. 
Whether is the Church of England so tied to the word of God, and such helps, that it cannot err nor misinterpret the Scriptures in fundamental points of Faith?  Mr. Walker. 
I answer, that as in all other particular Churches so in the particular Churches of England, there is a double voice, one of the Church, as she is the true Church of Christ, and that is both her voice commending the Scriptures, only to be believed as necessary for saving knowledge and true faith, and also the voice of GOD plainly speaking in the Scriptures, in this respect she is so tied that she cannot err. There is another voice which the Church uttereth not immediately from herself, by the Commission which Christ gave unto her; but by her frail members, suppose a Synod and assembly of Pastors taking upon them to determine things doubtful out of obscure places of Scripture, and to make them more plain than the Scriptures do upon which they build; This voice may err, and by it the Church may be said after a sort to err in some part, though not wholly, nor finally, nor obstinately: because if it be a true Church, it will not absolutely and peremptorily determine that which the Scriptures leave doubtful: neither will it persist always 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 err finally. This is my answer; But because I would give 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 err for a time, and after some manner in a point fundamental or necessary to salvation. Ground what you can upon this, and let us have some disputation by way of strict Arguments and Syllogisms.  Mr. Smith 
I have enough out of your own confession to prove that you have neither Church nor Faith. And I pray you Gentlemen to mark and take notice, he grants that the Protestant Church of England may err in a fundamental point, if in one, then as well in another, and so from one to another till it err in all, and so have no faith at all, and having no faith it is no Church. Thus you see I have proved that Protestants have neither church nor Faith: and therefore I beseech you all take heed of them, who by their own confession have forsaken the Catholic Church and faith, and do wilful run into all damnable errors and heresies, and lead men into destruction. You see how plainly they are convinced; and I appeal to you all, judge whether I have not plainly proved that which I did under take, to wit, that they have neither Church nor Faith, and so are in a most damnable estate.  Mr. Walker. 
To these words uttered, with great vehemency and action of the hands and whole body, Mr. Walker standing up, and putting of his Hat made this reply: First (saith he) though it was your motion, and my desire that I might talk mildly without bitter words: yet seeing he first breaks out so unreasonably, and go about by bitter and reproachful words and gestures to bear down the truth: I must crave leave of these Gentlemen to answer you in your kind, though it be very unseemly that in my manner of answer, you may behold the unseemlynesse of your disputing: and then with like words, voice, and gestures, he answered to this effect: First, where as you say that you have proved, that which you did undertake▪ you show yourself without wit or reason: for you are not able to bring one word of reason by way of argument, till I do lay you a ground, as all here do see; and therefore if you seem to prove any thing, you must thank me for it, who do yield more than you can prove: Secondly, your argument is without all form, order, or reason; for it doth not follow, that every Church which may err in one point, may err in all points at once, and fall wholly away, because God hath promised, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church so far as to put it quite from the foundation, though it may Build stubble and straw upon the foundation, by erring in some points for a time. Thirdly, though it be not impossible for the true Church to err yea though it were granted that it might wholly fall away from all faith: yet it doth not there upon 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 have proved this man by his own speech to be without wit, reason modesty or honesty, roving without wit or reason, railing without modesty, and falsely charging us against all show of honesty: But I fear me that this kind of Friar-like preaching, is odious and distasteful to all judicious beholders: I pray you let us dispute orderly, and according to art: And if you be able to dispute Scholarlike, let us have one argument framed into a short Syllogism.  Mr. Smith. 
I warrant you I can make Syllogisms to your small comfort.  Mr. Walker 
And I doubt not but I shall as easily answer them to your small ease.  Mr. Smith. 
Then he with much ado uttered this Syllogism, and caused it to be written down. That Church which hath not the word of God truly preached, and infallibly delivered unto it, is not the true Church of Christ: But the Protestant Church is such, Ergo.  Mr. Walker. 
I distinguish upon the Mayor proposition: For if you mean the word truly preached, and infallibly delivered in every particular point, so that it can never err any manner of way in any such point. I deny the Mayor upon example and warrant from the Apostles: and do hold that a true Church may for a time have the word not truly delivered, and infallibly in some point, and yet be a true Church: But if you understand a total erring in all points, and a preaching of the whole word untruly: then is your Minor most false, for Protestant Churches do not preach the whole word untruly at any time. Now prove you which of your propositions you please: For in these senses which I have named both are false.  Mr. Smith. 
The Mayor is so manifest that it needs no proof, neither can be denied, for how is it possible for any Church to be a true Church which hath not the word truly preached in all points.  Mr. Walker. 
It is to me a manifest untruth, and therefore prove it true if you can; if you cannot, then yield the cause, that is false.  Mr. Smith. 
I prove 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.  Mr. Walker. 
This is no proof of that proposition which I denied, and which you did undertake to prove, and therefore you show yourself ignorant in disputing and do commit that fallacy against the rules of Logic which we call Ignorationem elenchi.  Mr. Smith 
It is a true Syllogism, and proves the main matter in controversy, to wit, that you have no true Church.  Mr. Walker 
But the thing which you were to prove, was that the Church which hath not God's word truly preached, and infallibly delivered in every point at all times, is not a true Church. This because you cannot tell how to prove as you did undertake, therefore you flee to another new Argument, to which also I do answer, as I did to the former: First, that the Mayor proposition is false: For a Church which hath the word of God falsely or erroneously translated in some parts, and so not truly preached in every part, may be a true Church. Secondly, if you mean falsely translated, and not truly preached of purpose and wilfully, than the Minor is false, for though the translation of the Church of England may fail and miss of the true meaning of diverse places, (as all the best translations, especially the vulgar Latin approved by the Romish Church doth,) yet it is not so erroneously translated of purpose, neither do all the Preachers thereof build, certainly on such erroneous and false translations, but many do discern them, and preach and teach the true oppositions; and the Church alloweth them so to do, when they show good reasons for their doings, from the circumstances of the Text.  Mr. Smith. 
But I will show plainly by diverse Examples, that you have diverse places of Scripture falsely translated in your translation of set purpose, and wilfully contrary to the words of the Hebrew Text, contrary also to the Greek and Latin, received in all ages and Churches heretofore.  Mr. Walker. 
You threaten largely in words which are but wind; but indeed you can never perform that which you say. Let us see if you be able to show any part of our translation, wherein one word is falsely translated of purpose: I desire no more but to join 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 Original.  Mr. Smith. 
I shall quickly prove what I say, and what you require. First, I have a plain example, Malachi 2. 7. where your translators read the words thus, The Priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth. First this translation is false, because it is contrary to the Hebrew text, wherein the words are jishmeru they shall keep, and jebakshu they shall seek: and not, they should keep, nor, they should seek. Also it is contrary to the Greek, wherein the words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to the Latin translation of St. Hierome, which is Custodient, and requirent. Secondly, it teacheth heresy and false doctrine, namely; that God's Priests, & they who sit in Moses Chair, may err, contrary to the words of Christ who commands his Disciples to hear all such as sit in Moses Chair, because they shall not err, but their lips shall preserve knowledge. Thirdly, it is thus corrupted of purpose, to gainsay the infallibility of the Pastors of the Church, who do succeed in the Chair of the Apostles, and to blind the people's eyes, that they may not see the certainty and infallibility of judgement in the Priests and Pastors who sit in Moses Chair, & how they are bound to seek the Law at their mouth: but may follow any upstart teachers which separate from the Catholic Church. Thus you see Gentlemen all, how plainly I have proved that the Church of England hath of purpose corrupted the Scriptures, and therefore is no true Church.  Mr. Walker. 
Indeed if that which you say were true, you did speak something to the purpose; but great words and protestations cannot make truth to be falsehood, nor falsehood 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 prove both from the Hebrew words, which you have here showed 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 than either the Greek or Latin. First, though the Hebrew words jishmeru & jebakshu be of the Futuretense, yet this doth not prove: that they should be translated so in our tongue, because you cannot but know, if you have any skill in the Hebrew tongue, that the future tense in Hebrew, sometime simply, and sometime by means of Vau conversive signifies time, either perfectly or imperfectly passed; sometimes it stands for the Optative, Potential, and Subiunctive mood; therefore our translation is not different, nor irregular from the Hebrew, which is the original. Secondly, it was never the purpose of God's spirit in that place, or by these words to teach, that the Law should always be taught truly and infallibly by the Priests and Pastors who succeed Moses, or the Apostles locally in the Church by a continued succession: for that is a falsehood contrary to the experience of all ages: this very place confutes it most evidently; For the Priests unto whom the Prophet here speaks in these places 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. As it appears in the next words immediately following: yea some of them had sacrificed to Idols, as josephus shows in his History of those times, and therefore 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 judath to one of David's line fall to Christ, who descended of her, and he should take it away to himself for ever as is intimated in the 3. verse of the same Chapter. So than it is no heresy but God's holy truth, that Priests succeeding in the place and office of Aaron and Moses may err and have erred: Moset his Chair in which the Scribes and pharisees 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 therefore what they there did teach was true, and Christ commanded his Disciples to obey it: But in their own glosses and traditions they erred damnably, & made void God's Law, 
Math. 13. 4. 16. 12.  and their Doctrine our Saviour called sour leaven, and warned his Disciples to beware of it. Thirdly, they who translate the words thus: The Priest's lips shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the Law at his munch: Did never intend to show thereby, that God did make here a promise, that so it shall be for ever, but only to show that this is the Law and Commandment of God, teaching what the Priests and People should do and aught to do, even as in the commandment, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me. The words do not promise, that the Israelites should always acknowledge and worship jehovah the true God alone, (for the event showed the contrary within 40. pays) but show what they ought to do; but the words are a comes mandement recited, not a promise made, the wordof the 4. verse show. Therefore our English translation is most perfect of all, showing not only the sense and meaning of the Law, but also how it did bind the Priest and People, and how they ought to obey it. Thus you see how your example doth make for us against yourself.  Mr. Smith. 
Mr. Smith finding worse success than he expected in this example, and perceiving 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. Break off thy sins by righteousness, & thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor: Here saith he, the word in the Chaldee, which is the Original, Perok, signifies to Redeem, and so the Greek and Latin Translations render it; but your Translations of purpose, contrary to all the ancient received Translators, and to the nature of the word in the original, do translate it, Break off, and that of purpose to oppose the true doctrine of satisfaction & merit by good works. Therefore your Church is a false Church.  Mr. Walker. 
Howsoever other translations run, I am sure our English is in sense most sound & Orthodox. That translation which counsels Nabuchadnezar to redeem his sins by righteousness, is (as the words doerun) senseless and against all reason; For God never appointed that men's sins should be redeemed; but his will is, that they should be mortified and destroyed, and he so hates them, that he cannot leave them unpunished, but will have just vengeance to be executed for them, eitherupon the sinner himself, or on his surety. If you understand the words (as you seem to urge them) that Nabuchadnezar a wicked Heathen King, should by his own righteousness redeem himself from his sins; you do make Daniel a teacher of heresy and blasphemy: for it is no less than blasphemy, to hold that an Idolatrous Pagan may by his own righteousness redeem himself: it makes void the promise of Christ the Redeemer. But our English translation doth teach excellent truth; to wit, that a true convert ought not only to believe in Christ, and by faith to put on the Robe of Righteousness, that therein he may appear righteous before God, and comely in his sight; but also to break off his sinful course of life, and never to go on any longer in any known sin, as Papists do, in hope of absolution by confession and penance. And therefore I doubt not, but the word in the original will be more agreeable to our translation, when we come to see and examine it, if you be pleased to let me see your Hebrew Bible.  Mr. Smith. 
Lo here in the original the word is in the Caldee Perok, which signifies only to redeem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek translation renders it: and the Latin Redeem.  Mr. Walker. 
I thought that we should find it thus, when we came to the trial; dare you here before these Gentlemen put on such an impudent face, as to affirm without fear or shame that this Parak signifies only to redeem and nothing else?  Mr. Smith. 
I confesseit signifies also to break in sunder, but never to break off.  Mr. Walker. 
Yea, it signifies all kind of breaking, even breaking asunder, breaking a pieces, and breaking off; for indeed it is an Hebrew word, and the Caldee borrows it form the Hebrew, the first and most proper signification of it, is to break asunder, or to break off: and it doth signify to Redeem only in a trope by a Metominie of the cause for the effect, for men are redeemed out of bondage, by having their yoke of bondage broken off from their neck, and their chains and fetters broken in sunder, and that that breaking is the means of their Redemption: That it signifies properly to break off, appears by the common use of it in the Scriptures, as Gen. 27. 40. where Isaac saith to Esau. Thou shalt break off his yoke from thy neck: Exod. 32. 2. where Aaron said to the people, Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, etc. Thus Gentlemen you see what a bold face this man can set upon a falsehood, and how he goeth about to bear down the truth with great words.  Sir Edward Harwood. 
Upon this Sir Edward Harwood stood up and said, that Mr. Smith hath failed much in this proof, seeing the word in the original did bear another sense more proper, then that which he urged 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. 
M. Smith thus confounded had no shift but this: That the Hebrew text was by the malice of the jews corrupted in many things, and that it was written of old without pricks, until the jewish Massorites did invent pricks and vowels, by which we do read it, diverse hundreds of years after Christ: And therefore he would not build natural point on the original Hebrew words.  Mr. Walker. 
Now (saith Mr. Walker) you show you self what you are in your own colours, even one who esteems no authority or testimony either of God or man, further than they serve your own turn: while you imagined that the Hebrew Text was against our translation, you did urge it with great vehemency, as the authority and testimony of God. Now when it fails you and contrary to your expectation doth make for us: you vilify it and reject it, as a thing corrupted by the jews, and form according to the mind and pleasure of the jewish Massorites: wherein you show not only vanity of mind and inconstancy: but also malice and wickedness joined with wilful ignorance. For how soever Elias Levita a turnecoate jew of later times, may seem to affirm such a thing (perhaps to please his Patron Aegidius) that the Vowels were invented by the Massorites of Tiberias: yet it is the judgement of all the best learned, both jewish 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 ancient and authentic Manuscripts 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 been kept perfect, a man might find 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 Eastern and Western jews, are recorded and kept to this day, the one set down under the names of the Sons of Ashur, the other under the names of the Sons of Nephtali, and they are such as do not alter the sense at all, as may be seen in all our great rabbinical Bibles; The end therefore of the Massarites meeting, and of their work, was not to invent vowels and pricks, but only to note how they did find the Scriptures pricked and vowelled from the days of old, and to set down rules from the knowledge thereof, and for the preserving them without alteration or corruption to all posterities: Thus much I have learned out of the Rabbins, though my skill be but small in their Language, and though I have had no time to spend in the study of them, but such as I have stolen from my other necessary studies of Divinity, which properly concern 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.  Mr. Smith. 
All the Rabbins are of opinion, that the pricks of the Bible were invented by the Massarites, and undoubtedly that opinion is the truth.  Mr. Walker. 
I pray you name one Rabbin of note, who is of that opinion, and I will name you ten of the contrary; I have ten or twelve of the best Rabbin Commentaries upon the Law of Moses, which I will show to you, and if you can find any of them to be of that opinion, I will yield unto you in this point. Nay, more than that, I will show out of the Scriptures written by Moses, that the original Scriptures of Moses his Law, which were kept in the Tabernacle by the Priests, were written, not single without pricks as common copies were, but double, both with letters and pricks, so that none could doubt of the right reading of them.  Mr. Smith. 
It is easily said; but impossible to be proved, if you can show me any such thing out of the Scriptures, you shall do more than any ever yet could do.  Mr. Walker. 
Look Deut. 17. 18. and there it is plainly testified, that there was a book of the Law appointed to be kept before the Priests & Levites in the Sanctuary; out of which, the King was commanded to write him a double written Copy of the Law, that is a copy written both with letters and pricks, and so most easy to be read and understood; for the Hebrew word there used 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 form, both with letters and pricks.  Another Priest. 
Mr. Smith being confounded with this proof could answer nothing, & therefore another Priest who did sit by to assist him, answered for him, that the Hebrew word Mishneth doth not signify the original Scriptures, but the exposition of the Rabbins upon the text of Scripture.  Mr. Walker. 
It is true that the Rabbins call their Expositions sometimes by this name, as for example Rabbi Moses, Maymonides call his Sum of the Talmid, Mishueth Torah: But you must know that in Moses his days, when he wrote this Book of Deuteronomy, there were no Rabbinical Commentaries, nor for a thousand years after; only the Law itself was kept before the Priests, and the King was commanded to write it only into a Book; There Mishueth cannot here signify any thing but the Text of the Law written in double form, which double form of writing was easy to be read and understood, and was an exposition in respect of the single writing without pricks. Whereupon this word Mishueth came to signify an Exposition or Commentary which doth largely express the meaning of the Law, which is more short and obscure: and the jews do call by this name the Book of Deuteronomy, because it is an Exposition of the Laws written more obscurely in the other books: And their Expositions of the Law set down in their Talmud: they also call Mishueth and Mishuai●th.  Priest. 
The word Mishueth doth not signify properly the Scripture, but the doubled Law: for the Scripture is called Mickra in the Hebrew tongue.  Mr. Walker. 
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 double form, signifies the Scripture written both with letters and pricks, and so you contradict yourself in your speech: Whereas you allege another name, by which the Hebrews call the Scripture, to wit, Mickra, and from them would infer, that the Scripture is never 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 diverse names in all languages: we in English call it the Scripture, and the Bible, and the Book of God, and God's word: So in Hebrew the Scripture is called by diverse 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 God's people. And as it is written full and plain in letters and pricks, it is called Mishueh. The Priest having 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 understand might cease, and that Mr. Smith would dispute in plain English by way of Syllogisms; To which motion both parties agreed. And so Mr. Smith proceeded to another Argument, which was written down first, and then answered.  Mr. Smith. 
That Church which may err for a time in a fundamental point necessary to salvation, is no true Church. Yours is such.  Mr. Walker. 
I deny your proposition; for a true Church may so err for a time.  Mr. Smith. 
That Church which may err for a time in a fundamental point necessary to salvation, hath no certainty for that time, yours is such, Ergo, it is no true Church.  Mr. Walker. 
Your Argument is Sophistical and faulty diverse ways: First, it doth not prove the proposition which I denied, and so it is a fallacy, which we call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ignorationem Elanchi. Secondly, it is no true Syllogism, because it hath four terms. For the premises tend to prove that our Church hath no certainty, and you conclude otherwise: to wit, that it is no true Church. Thirdly, the proposition is false, for actual erring in one point, doth not take away certainty in all the rest, much less possibility of erring for a time.  Mr. Smith. 
I prove it thus. That Church which may err for a time in a fundamental point necessary to salvation, hath not sufficient means of salvation for that time: yours is such, Ergo, it is no true Church.  Mr. Walker. 
Here are the same three faults, which were in your former Argument. First, no proof of the proposition denied. Secondly, four terms. Thirdly, the manner is still false: for possibility of erring doth not take away sufficiency of means for the time.  Mr. Smith. 
I prove it thus. That Church which may err for a time in a fundamental point necessary to salvation, for that time hath not the whole infallible truth requisite to salvation. But your Church may so err: Ergo. It hath not the whole infallible faith requisite for salvation.  Mr. Walker. 
I see you cannot bring one argument to prove that which I denied; but still you do begin a new Argument to prove new things. Notwithstanding I will follow you wheresoever you go; and therefore I deny the mayor, and do require you to prove that possibility of erring, takes away the whole infallible faith from such as are subject to it.  Mr. Smith. 
I prove it thus. The belief of the whole infallible faith, is a means necessary to salvation. The English Church hath not the whole infallible faith: Ergo. That Church which may err for a time in a fundamental point, for that time hath not means sufficient.  Mr. Walker. 
Now sir I see you have lost the question, and your reason, and yourself, and all your speech is a Chaos without form or figure, and proveth nothing at all: If you be not able to make a Syllogism; I pray you confess your weakness: and let me dispute one of my questions against you, and let us try what faculty you have in defending your cause; I am sure you have none to any purpose in opposing it.  Mr. Smith. 
Stay a little, and I will bring it into a Syllogism presently. The whole entire, infallible faith in all fundamental points, is only a means sufficient to salvation: That Church which may err for a time in a fundamental point, hath not the whole infallible faith: Ergo: it hath not sufficient means, etc.  Mr. Walker. 
You cloy me with crazy Syllogisms which have neither mood nor figure, and which tend to prove nothing but only to repeat what hath been before denied; to wit, That possibility of erring for a time in a fundamental point, doth deprive a Church of the whole infallible faith. Thus you bring in again as your minor, though it hath before been denied: and therefore I will still put you to prove it. But I pray you let your assistant write down your Syllogisms, for I am weary of writing, and of wasting paper, with false fallacies and confused speeches, which hath neither mood nor figure.  Mr. Smith. 
I am sure I shall quickly bring my Argument into form, if you stand so strictly on artificial Syllogisms: Having thus said, he arose from the table, as if he would breathe himself; and after much scratching of his head, and other gestures, he turns to the Priest his assistant and bids him write: and did dictate unto him another false Syllogism of some terms: which Mr. Walker rejected and derided; And after that another, which was so rejected: And after that a third, and so on till he had spent a side of a leaf in folio in writing down fallacies, and a large half hour and more of time.  
So that Mr. Walker began to entreat him that he would give him leave to make his Syllogism for him, for he perceived what he intended  
Whereat Mr. Smith chafed, and said to the Gentlemen, he confounds me, or else I could have long ago brought it into a Syllogism.  
Mr. Walker answered: you do me wrong to attribute to me the honour which belongs to God and his truth, for they confound you and not I.  
Then one of the Roman Catholics began to swear by God, that Mr. Smith did make a true Syllogism, which Mr. Walker had without cause rejected.  
Mr. Walker desired him to repeat it, and to show it to be regular, according to mood and figure.  
The Roman Catholic swore again diverse great oaths, and said that he would take the Sacrament upon it, and renounce his salvation if he did not hear Mr. Smith make a true Syllogism, and that one of them which Mr. Walker rejected was it.  
Mr. Walker answered, that oaths could not prove false Syllogisms to be true, neither could the Sacrament turn a fallacy into a sound Argument. And told him that if he were so prodigal of his salvation, he might sooner lose his soul, then make a Syllogism out of Mr. Smith's confused speeches and fallacies. At length after much ado Mr. Smith hammered out this Syllogism.  Mr. Smith. 
That Church which hath not the whole entire infallible faith, hath not means sufficient to salvation, That Church which may err for a time, hath not the whole entire infallible faith, Ergo, it hath not means sufficient.  Mr. Walker. 
I deny your minor, and do put you to prove, that the Church which may err, hath not the whole infallible faith.  Mr. Smith. 
I prove it thus: That Church which is subject to error, hath not the whole infallible faith. That Church which may err is subject to error. Ergo.  Mr. Walker. 
Now sir I thank you, that you have bestowed a Syllogism upon me, to prove the proposition denied. But I must tell you, that your mayor proposition is false. For a Church may be so far subject to error, that it may have a possibility to err, and yet not be void of the whole infallible faith: It is one thing to be subject to error, and another thing to err actually: we hold that our Church or any other particular Protestant Church may err; but do not think that our Church doth err in any fundamental point.  Mr. Smith. 
You do but cavil; for if it may err, it is as bad as if it did err, and therefore I have sufficiently convinced you by my argument.  Mr. Walker. 
I hope you do not speak as you think, nor think as you speak: For you know that by our Law every Seminary Priest is subject to hanging and quartering, and there is no impossibility of executing the Law upon 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 Scholars speak. But now seeing your argument is hanged up, and we have spent four hours and more in hearing you dispute to no purpose, I pray you let me prosecute one of my questions against you for the time which remaineth, and I hope to make more Syllogisms in an hour, than you have done in four, if you will answer me directly.  
Here some of the Roman Catholics said that it was full six a clock, and now there was little time left. But some of the Protestants desired to hear Mr. Walker dispute upon his questions. Which when Mr. Smith seemed loath to yield unto, as being weary already. Mr. Walker desired, that he might but turn one Argument against Mr. Smith's question, and prove the contrary to be true. To this all assented, and the Gentleman who began to distrust his former professed Popery coming to Mr. Walker, and standing at his back desired him to press one Argument against Mr. Smith's question. Whereupon Mr. Walker thus began to prove, That a true Christian Church might err for a time in some fundamental point, and yet be a true Church.  Mr. Walker. 
That which the ancient Apostolical Church might do, other succeeding Churches may do with the same success. 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.  Mr. Smith. 
I deny the minor, the Apostolical Church did not err in any main point.  Mr. Walker. 
The resurrection of Christ from the dead taught in the Scriptures, is a fundamental point of Faith. The Apostolic Church did err in it, Ergo:  Mr. Smith denied the minor. 
Mr. Walker proved it thus. That which the Gospel teacheth in express words is true. This the Gospel teacheth, that the Apostles erred in Christ's resurrection, Ergo.  Mr. Smith. 
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 speak of the resurrection as it is a point of Faith, I deny your minor.  Mr. Walker. 
You distinguish strangely between a thing and itself; for the very act of Christ's resurrection is a point of Faith, without which our faith is vain as the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 15. 17.  Mr. Smith. 
It is now a point of faith, but it was not then, because the Scriptures had not expressly revealed, that Christ should rise from death.  Mr. Walker. 
That which Christ had expressly taught by word of mouth, was thereby made a point of Faith, and they were bound to believe. But he had told them, that he must suffer and rise again the third day: and that in plain words, as the Gospel testifies, Ergo.  
Here some of the Gentlemen said, that the point was sufficiently proved.  Mr. Smith. 
But I deny that the Apostles erred in the Resurrection: show me that out of the Gospel.  Mr. Walker. 
It is testified joh. 20. 9 That they knew not the Scripture that he must rise from the dead. Lo thus it is testified in your own vulgar Latin Bible.  Mr. Smith. 
I say still, that the Scriptures had not revealed it sufficiently, and therefore it was no point of faith.  Mr. Walker. 
The text shows that the Scripture had revealed, for else how could it truly 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 never taught.  Sir William Harrington. 
O well said, I protest I never heard any point so plainly proved; and then turning himself to the wavering Gentleman said: Now cousin, if ever thou wilt be converted, be converted with these proofs.  Mr. Walker. 
But yet I will prove it more fully, Luk. 24. 44. 45. Our Saviour there saith, that he had told them before, that he must die and rise again, and that it was written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, and it is said there, that he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures.  Mr. Smith. 
This was an error of ignorance or forgetfulness, for want of instruction and exercise in the Word, which succeeding Churches have more abundantly.  Mr. Walker. 
You cavil against common sense, for I dispute not whence this error proceeded, but whether they erred in that main point of the resurrection or not; and that you cannot deny, so that the point is fully proved which I undertook. Again, I can show you yet further, that Christ having instructed them in the Scriptures, and from his own mouth, it could not be for want of instruction that they erred, but this error proceeded from incredulity and hardness of heart in them, so it appears, Mark. 16. 14. where it is said that our Saviour appeared to the eleven Apostles, and upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.  Another Priest. 
Mr. Smith being put to silence with those proofs, the other Priest to make up 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.  Mr. Walker. 
Upon this, Mr. Walker first spoke to the wavering 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, etc. And, upon this rock I will build my Church. Who answered, that he desired to be of no better Church. Secondly, he proceeded thus; The Kingdom of God which comes by the Preaching of the Gospel is the true Church. But that was come already, as our Saviour himself testified, Matth. 11. 28. and Luk. 11. 20. It is a base shift, to say that the coming down of the holy Ghost made them a Church: 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 every people, in their proper tongue. But if all this will not convince you, let us know who were the Church in those days, if the Apostles were not. Peter had received that commission and promise long before, upon which you build the Church of Rome, if it was not then able to make him of the Church, how can it now uphold your Church against all the gates of hell? Now then to conclude, I beseech you as you love your souls, take heed of sinning against your own Conscience, and of rebelling against the light: you know that the Apostles were elected from all eternity; they were effectually called by Christ himself, not only to believe, and to be Christians and open professors, but also to be Apostles and Preachers, and by the Gospel Preached and Miracles wrought, they had converted many to the faith, as the Gospel testifieth; And therefore nothing being wanting in them, which is required to the essence of a Christian Church: undoubtedly they were a true Church, and to deny this, is to resist the manifest truth of the Gospel. Thus the disputation ended; for the Priests did not give any answer, but were very willing to make an end. The Protestant Gentlemen seemed well satisfied, and made them ready to depart. And one of the Roman Catholics calling Mr. Walker 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 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 seem good when he defended it: But saith he, take heed that you do not trust to your wit and learning too much, lest they deceive you, and make you triumph over the truth.  
To him Mr. Walker answered, that he knew himself inferior to many hundreds in the Church of England; that it was not any power in himself, but the power of the true cause which made him to prevail. For, Magnus est veritas & praevalebit, Great is truth and will prevail. A Gentleman overhearing, laughed and said, I am glad that you find some of our Ministers more learned than your Priests; contrary to your common bragging and boasting, that all learning is among your Priests and Jesuits. And so they parted. Mr. Smith alias Norrice embracing Mr. Walker, and saying; I pray God we may meet in heaven; and Mr. Walker replying and saying, I desire so also, and hope we shall so do, if you will forsake your errors and embrace the truth, which is professed in the reformed Churches of CHRIST.  
Soli Deo gloria.  
FINIS.