signifieth to redeeme as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke Redime doth in Latin hence Peric signifieth a Redeemer Purkan Redemption and so Theodotio so Vatablus so S. Ierome and so all others expresse the word wherfore either all texts are falsified or all are true If all be false the Hebrew is tainted with corruption as wel as the Greeke and Latin if all true your translation is inexcusable in discording froÌ„ the truth of all originalls from the version of all the Auncients Syr Edward Harwood with others These Disputations about the Hebrew text are aboue our capacity anâ— filter for the Schooles I pray you descend to some more profitable matter and easier for our vnderstanding M. SMITH Vpon this motion only I ceased to rip vp the residue of Protestant corruptions but not because neyther I nor my Companion had any more to say as M. Walker according to his fashion peruersly relateth for infinite other deprauations of theirs are obuious and apparent as the fraudulency they vse in translating one and the same Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Traditio For in such textes as mention good and holsome Traditions they in lieu of Traditions read Ordinances where the Scripture speaketh of such as be naughty or friuolous they in hatred of our Apostolicall Traditions carefully set downe the right word Traditions The same deceit they practise in expressing the Hebrew word Sheol Hell For where it may import a third place besides Heauen Hell they warily turne it into Graue Gen. 37. v. 35. Osee 13. v. 14. but where it cannot be meant of any other then of the dungeon of the damned there they rightly translate it as in the 15. of the Prouerbes v. 24. Hel beneath I might haue vrged how they iuggle with the word worthy or make worthy against the merit of workes how they change Iustifications into Statutes Iustice into Righteousnes against inherent Iustice how they sometyme forsake the Hebrew and retire to the Greeke as in the 9 of Prouerbes v. 2. Wisdome hath mingled her wine because the Hebrew word Masecha wholy fauoureth the ancient mingling of water and wine in the Chalice which the Fathers vrge as necessary and Protestants vtterly neglect they fly to the ambiguity of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may signify to powre out as well as to mingle so did they alwayes read before his Maiesties Correction Otherwhiles they leaue the Greeke and haue recourse to the Latin as Act. 13. though the Greeke be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they sacrificing to our Lord as Erasmus translateth it yet your translation still runneth according to the Latine they ministring vnto our Lord because you cannot abide that word although written by God which doth any way relish of the Sacrifice of the Masse These and a thousand such of your guilefull sleights I might haue alleadged howbeit to condescend to the reasonable motion of Syr Edward Harwood and the rest I willingly omitted them and returned to prooue the second part of my first Antecedent which you denied The Antecedent was this The Word of God preached in the Church of England is corrupted with errours and the men that deliuer it are subiect to errours The former part is already prooued by the manifest adulterations of your Bible before mentioned The second Part. That your men also are subiect to errour I conuince by the confessioÌ„ of M. Reynoldes M. Whitaker and the most learned Protestantes of our tyme who expresly write that the true Church which they suppose theirs to be may erre and all her Pastours in some points of fayth euen necessary to saluation Therfore your men your Preachers and Pastours are subiect to errour M. WALKER I graunt that the true Church may erre for a tyme insome one fundamentall point necessary to saluation this I affirme of the Protestant Church of our Church of England Ground what you can vpon this M. SMITH Though some of the Catholikes heerevpon cryed out We haue inough inough let vs leaue of our dispute yet to giue more full satisfaction to the ProtestaÌ„t Gentlemen who perceaued not so soone the absurdity of this Paradoxe or folly of M. VValker in granting that very part of my Antecedent which before he denyed I proceeded a little further and argued thus against him If your Church may erre in one point necessary to saluation it may as well erre in another and so caÌ„ propose nothing vndoubtedly to be belieued as an article of fayth Which inference though M. VValker denyed and with many cauillations laboured to diuert yet it euidently followeth as I thus declare That Church which hath not sufficient authority to persuade all the mysteries of fayth she proposeth to be infallibly true can propose nothing vndoubtedly to be belieued as an article of fayth But your Church which may erre now in one point now in another at least for a tyme hath not sufficient authority to persuade all the mysteries of fayth she proposeth to be infallibly true Therefore your Church can propose nothing vndoubtedly to be belieued as an article of fayth For seeing the Articles in which your Church may erre are not specified by God nor knowne to your followers they may iustly feare and suspect least those she now proposeth be some of them in which she may erre But with feare and suspition no fayth can stand nothing can she propose which ought vndoubtedly to be belieued as S. Augustine in the like case most excellently discourseth saying How can he be belieued who thinketh he may sometyme tell a lye for perchance he then lyeth when he câ—mmauÌ„deth vs to beleeue him So you that hold your Church may sometyme erre haue cause to doubt least then perchance she erreth when she commaundeth you to follow her doctrine If cause to doubt no cause to obey no cause to credit her Nay it implyeth coÌ„tradictioÌ„ we should with diuine fayth giue credit vnto her For by fayth we are assured that the thing she teacheth cannot possibly be otherwise then we belieue By doubtfulnes or suspicion we mistrust they may be otherwise Els why do we doubt Why do we suspect Therfore it is a manifest implicancy and irreconciliable coÌ„tradiction that fayth and doubtfulnes should coÌ„sist togeather that we should be vndoubtedly persuaded of the truth proposed yet stagger and misdoubt of the truth therof as you haue iust cause to do as long as you maintayne that your Church may deceaue you Besides to prooue out of the former Paradoxe that your Church is not the true Church I framed these Syllogismes That Church which may erre for a tyme in a fuÌ„damentall point necessary to saluation hath no certainty for that tyme. Yours is such Ergo it is no true Church Againe That Church which may erre for a tyme in a fuÌ„damentall point necessary to saluation hath not sufficient meanes of saluation for that tyme. Yours is such Ergo it is no true Church M. WALKER These
of meer fraud so treacherously insert M. WALKER Well I am content to make this the very issue of our meeting And if M Whitaker affirme any such thing let me be branded with the marke of a willfull liar impostor and false Prophet But if I shew the coÌ„trary out of his owne writings then shall you coÌ„fesse your selfe a forger a falsifier an impostor a Priest of Baal The gentlemen all confessed this was faire play desired it might be soc Wherupon M. Smith as M. Walker writeth began to drawbacke shewed himselfe vnwilling much affraid to hazard his credit so quickly would gladly haue left this poynt fallen into another M. SMITH How little I was affraid to hazard my credit in that matter the standers by at that tyme can witnesse and the euidences I am now to bring out of M. Whitaker shall manifestly declare for he supposing that wheresoeuer the Word is trulie preached there it is heard there it is belieued and conserued and there it fructifieth in the hearts of some expresly auerreth of the markes afore mentioned 1. We ascribe these properties to the Church which comprise the true nature of the Church whose presence make the Church and their absence marre or destroy the Church But if they comprehend the true nature of the Church without which it cannot stand they contayne not the accidentall but the essentiall nature If the essentiall Nature the essence yf the essence the whole essence because it is indiuisible they must compreheÌ„d 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 Word is the cause of the Church c. Then as the cause produceth her effect so truth doth constitute the Church and is cause therof Besides he often affirmeth that though this cause be more hidden to vs yet it is more knowne in nature more knowne in it selfe then the Church where he vndoubtedly speaketh not of the efficient but of the formall cause And who is so meane a student as not to knowe that the formall cause of a thing is the chiefe principall and formall essence of that whose cause it is 3. D. Whitaker holdeth that to be the essence of the Church which he doth comprehend in the definition of the Church as you very impertinently vrge against me and yet the description he maketh by these markes I now handle he plainly tearmeth a definition of the Church in his answere to M. Campian saying This definition engendred in the natiue and inward principles of the thing it selfe which wee define thou shalt neuer be able to ouerthrow Againe in another place speaking of the same markes he sayeth Those things which define those denote and signifie the Church c. So what a Horse what a Lion what an Eagle is by their definition it is knowne Therfore as the definition of an Horse of a Lion of an Eagle contayne their whole essence so the aforsayd marks which define the Church contayne the whole essence and nature of the Church By these three Arguments so stronge as M. Walker is not able to answere them so cleere as he cannot delude them the truth of my assertion is irreproueably confirmed he by his owne challeng and engagement is openly conuinced to be a wilfull liar a forger an impostor a false prophet and a Priest of Baal for such he must be chronicled for such entitled and whatsoeuer heerafter he shall say or write with that note of infamie must be all discarded Euen such is that which heere he writeth immediatly after M. WALKER Gentlemen it is true that D. Whitaker maintaines that the Word trulie preached and the Sacraments rightly administred are the certaine and infallible notes and markes by which euery true particular Church may be discerned to be Christs true Church and you know that the markes of a thinge differ from the essence and substance of it as the signe hanging at the dore of a Tauerne disters from the Tauerne it selfe and the habit and cowle of a Monke or Friar which is the marke of his Order differs from the Monke himselfe c. M. SMITH Where were your wits where was your iudgment where the reading of you Cantabrigian Professors when you wrote this at randome of their doctrine For the signe of a Tauerne the habit of a monke are ou ward extrinsecall signes those of M. Whitakers â—â—câ—et internall yours only knowne to the eye of seÌ„se his to the vnderstaÌ„ding eye of faith yours separable his altogeather inseparable yours may be changed or taken away without hurt or annoiance of the subiects they designe his cannot be remoued without destruction of the Church yours are not so much as accidentall qualities originallie springing from the essence of the things but voluntary signes instituted as the Logitians say to signifie at the will only and pleasure of man M. Whitakers are most true and as he calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprietates essentiall properties essentiall markes grafted in the inward principles of the Church it selfe so little conuersant are you in the monuments of your Maister Besides you do not only write thus opposit vnto him but most childishly also contradict your self tearming these notes of M. Whitaker certaine and infallible and yet comparing them with mutable and vncertaine signes which only signifie at mans appoyntment For an Iuye bush is not alwaies an infallible signe of a Tauerne nor the habit of a Friar an infallible marke of him as the Tragicall murders which no Friars but bloudy Homicides haue committed in Friars weedes and many other Comedies can tell you But because you are so ignorant as not to knowe your selfe what to say or what your owne men teach concerning this poynt let me examine you about another touching the Infallibilitie of the Church What hold you May the whole militant Church on earth erre or noe M. WALKER This is a captious and ambiguous question cannot directly in one word negatiue or affirmatiue be answered vnto M. SMITH No D. Reynolds answereth affirmatiuely that it may erre This is one of his Theses publickly defended in the Vniuersitie of Oxford but you thinke all things captious because you are set to cauill and willing to decline the disputation we haue in hand M. WALKER Nay I sâ—y it is captious and ambiguous because in some respect it may eâ—re in others it cannot If we consider it according to her Militancie Weaknes and Imperfections of men who are lyars so wee trâ—â—e say it may erre If we consider it according to the direction of Gods holy Spirit the assistance of Christ his Prophets and Apostles as it is guyded by their doctrine cleaueth close to the Scripture and swarueth not from them soe long we teach that it is infallible and cannot erre M. SMITH But thus euerie Hereticall Assemblie is also infallible Thus the Iewes Turkes Infidels Diuells
themselues are infallible for as long as any of these closely adhere to the word of God are guided by his doctrine and follow his direction so long they cannot erre And what hath your Church no more priuiledge or freedome from errour then Iewes then Turkes then Diuels M. WALKER Yes because Iewes and Turkes adhere not to the word of God they follow not the truth we doe M. SMITH Doe you because you say you doe Will not they say the same haue as good warrant as you But how shall we know you follow the truth what proofs alleage you To chaleng it thus without proofes seeing it is the matter controuerted between vs is Petere principium that is miserably to begge the argument we handle or to giue that for a reason which is only in question both most ridiculous and hissed out of all schooles Therfore M. Walker was so wary as to conceale in his SuÌ„me this inference of mine and the foolish reply or desperate Non-plus of his Moreouer to say your Church cannot erre as it cleaueth close to Gods Word speaketh and teacheth according to it or as long as it swarueth not from thence is nothing els theÌ„ to auouch though in other wordes that it cannot erre as it cleaueth to truth speaketh and teacheth according to truth or that it cannot erre as long as it erreth not which is as idle as the former was foolish because to adhere to Gods word is to adhere to the truth to swarue from thence is to runne into errour So that this answere is nothing to the purpose no way able to satisfie my demand for by asking of you Whether your Church may erre or no I demaund whether it be so assisted by God and guided by his holy spirit as it must needs cleaue to his word it cannot depart from it in deliuering any point of faith What answere you to this is your Church thus inerrable or no M. WALKER I haue told you alreadie how it may erre and how it may not M. SMITH And I haue refuted what you sayed If you haue nothing els to answere to my Interrogatories answere me a little to a Syllogisme or two I shall propose by which I meane to proue euen by this which you haue graunted that the Protestants Church of England is not the true Church of IESVS Christ. And thus I frame my argument That Church which hath not the word of God trulie preached and infallibly deliuered is not the true Church of IESVS Christ. But the Protestant Church of England hath not the word of God trulie preached and infallibly deliuered Therfore it is not the true Church of IESVS Christ. M. WALKER I denie the Minor M. SMITH I proue the Minor The word of God preached in the Church of England is corrupted with errours and the men that deliuer it are subiect to errours Therfore the Church of England hath not the word of God truly preached and infallibly deliuered 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 all true copies haue The lippes of the Priest shall keepe knowledge and the law they shalâ— require of his mouth you corruptly reade The lippes of the Priest should keepe knowledge and they should require the law of his mouth contrary to the Hebrew text which insteed of shall keepe hath Iismâ—ru insteed of shall seeke Iebakkesu contrary to the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary the Latine which is custodient and requirent all being of the Future tense and Indicatiue moode which you haue changed into the Preterimperfectense of the Optatiue or Subiunctiue moode altering therin both moode and tense of set purpose to gainsay the infallibility of Christs visible pastours who lawfully succeed in the Apostles roome and to patronage an errour or rather Heresy of your owne That the Priests Prelats of Gods Church may erre in doctrine and so the people not bound to require the law at their mouthes M. WALKER We haue not corrupted the Hebrew text for the true meaning of the Holy Ghost is perfectly deliuered by our Translation M. SMITH But answere me directly Are not the Hebrew Greeke and Latin wordes all in the future Tense Do they not all import shall keepe and shall require And haue not you altered both the tense and moode Is it not so what say you M. WALKER Though the wordes be in the future tense yet wee haue kept the true sense because the future tense in Hebrew by reason of vau conuersiuum may sometime stand for the preterimperfect tense of the Optatiue Potentiall oâ— Subiunctiue moode as our translation hath therfore it is noâ— different nor irregular from the Hebrew which is the Originall M. SMITH But this is a meere collusion for heere is no Vau conuersiuum in that place nor can there be as all that are cunninge in the Hebrew can tell so that this shift will not serue your turne nor that other of keeping the sense For I accuse you of corrupting the text But to alter the tense to alter the moode to alter the word of the Holy Ghost is to corrupt the text to change the diuine characters written by the finger of God Therfore your Translation is guilty of this change and corruption Otherwise if adulterers of Scripture may iudge of the sense where shall you find any adulteration what Heretike can be conuinced of corruptioÌ„ For aske the Arians aske the Valentinians aske Marcion who for paring or gnawing away many places of Gods word was called Mus-Ponticus the mouse of Pontus aske any of these Corrupters they will all answere they keep the sense bring as sound arguments as you do for the maintenance therof for such is your proofe M. WALKER It was â—euer the purpose of Gods spirit in that place or by these wordes to teach that the law should awayes be taught truly and infallibly by the Priests and Pastours who succeâ—d Moyses or the Apostles locally in the church by a continued succession M. SMITH Heere againe you fall to Petere principium for we proue it was his purpose because his wordes enforce it And haue you no other meanes to disproue it then by denying it was his purpose because he did neuer purpose it And why did he neuer purpose it Because is not agreable to the purpose of your Hereticall phrensie Though it be consonaÌ„t agreable to Gods sacred doctrine vttered vnfolded in diuers other places as when he sayeth that his spirit his wordes shal not depart out of the mouth of his Prophets and their seede and seeds seede for euer That he who heareth the Pastours of the Church heareth him That if any controuersy arise amongst inferiours they shall come to the Priests of the Leuiticall stocke and do whatsoeuer they shall teach according to the law It is consonant to these texts and sundry the like to which
arguments are sophisticall and faulty because they haue foure termes With the same Censure he discarded other Syllogismes as crazy imperfect he denied to answere any Enthymeme and such was his feare of hazarding both cause and credit as he reiected also a true and perfect Syllogisme in moode in figure as the Roman Catholike whome he mentioned maintayned against him Though he did not renounce his saluatioÌ„ if it were not true which M. Walker after his wonted fashion most iniuriously reporteth of him M. SMITH Your cause lyeth a bleeding wheÌ„ you thus begin to wrangle about Syllogismes yet these two which I haue heere repeated with the third which immediatly followeth in your Summe are such as no Scholler would reprehend For the conclusion which seems to make the Syllogisme consists of foure termes supposeth another Syllogisme vertually inuolued which to auoid tediousnes I did not expresse After which manner all Enthymenes are iustified and allowed notwithstanding one of the premisses be suppressed and the conclusion be immediatly inferred A thing very vsuall amoÌ„g the learned in all Vniuersities especially when the Disputant is either straitned with shortnes of tyme or the Auditory ouer-wearied as now it was with the combersome delay of 4. long houres by reason of your manifold digressioÌ„s idle repetitioÌ„s impertinent discourses ouer-tedious writings c. But you who neuer appeared in any such schooles neuer peeped out of Aristotles Parua's no meruaile though you could not apprehend that kind of arguing I pardon your ignorance I beare with your dulnes passe to those Syllogismes in moode and figure which you could not gainsay That Church which hath not the whole entire and infallible fayth hath not meanes sufficient to saluation But that Church which may erre for a tyme in a fundameÌ„tall point hath not the whole entire and infallible fayth Therfore it hath not meanes sufficient to saluation M. WALKER I deny your Minor and do put you to prooue that the Church which may erre hath not the whole and infallible fayth M. SMITH If it do erre it hath not whole entire fayth if it may erre it hath not infallible fayth as thus I prooue That Church which is subiect to errour in a fuÌ„damentall point hath not the whole and infallible fayth But that Church which may erre in such a point is subiect to errour Therfore it hath not whole and infallible fayth M. WALKER I must tell you that your Minor proposition is false For a Church may be so farre subiect to errour that it may haue a possibility to erre yet not be void of the whole and infallible fayth It is one thing to be subiect to errour and another to erre actually We hold that our Church may erre but doe not thinke that it doth erre in any fundamentall point M. SMITH If it may erre if it hath a possibility to erre it is as bad as if it did erre in respect of the certainty which fayth requireth for thus I argue That Church which is fallible in a fundamental point of fayth is not also infallible in the whole and entire fayth But your Church which is subiect to errour which hath a possibility to erre in a fundamentall point of fayth is fallible Therfore it is not also infallible in the whole entire fayth Vnlesse it may be in one and the same thing both fallible and infallible subiect to errour and not subiect which is impossible Mâ—â—revpon I concluded that sith the ProtestaÌ„t Church is fallible in fayth it hath not any true supernaturall fayth if it hath no true fayth it caÌ„not be a true Church which were the two things I was engaged to prooue and so I haue fully discharged my taske to the satisfaction I hope of all that be present For M. Walker being caught in this net of contradiction had no meanes to escape vnles as S. Augustine writeth of Maximinâ—s the Arrian Bishop By talking much and nothing to the purpose he might seeme at lest to answere who was not able to hold his peace Therfore some of his companions intreated he might argue a while to see whether he could haue better fortune in impugning our Church theÌ„ he had in defending theirs But before I relate the disputation he begaÌ„ I think it expedient for the instruction of such as are better conuersant in Diuinity to vnfold certayne Theologicall Principles or Articles of fayth whereby the force of my former argument the truth of our doctrine the folly of protestancy and the enormity of M. Walkers answere may more apparently be discouered The first Principle is that Fidei non potest subessâ— falsum fayth cannot be subiect to any falsity Faith is infallible sith it hath for its former obiect the prime Verity or authority of God it relieth vpon his infinite Knowledge which cannot be deceiued in vnderstanding any thing and vpon his infinite Veracity which will not beguile vs in testifying an vntruth It is impossible for God to lye we haue a most strong comfort But as it is impossible for God to lye impossible for him to witnes that which may be false So it is impossible for the habit of Fayth to incline or for the act of Fayth to assent to that which is lyable to any falshood As S. Thomas singularly well prooueth by these 3. Reasons First because nothing can belong to the habit or act of fayth except that which appertaineth to theyr formall obiect and in such sort as it is instilled conueyed and drawne from thence Euen as no colour can be seene vnlesse it be garnished with the beames of light But to prime Verity no falsity can belong not only any actuall falshood but not so much as any thing that hath a possibility to be fals no more then any pronesse to euill can appertayne to soueraigne goodnes or the least shadow of darknes to light inaccessable Therfore Fayth which hath prime Verity for her obiect must not only be free from actuall errour but from all lyablenes therunto or possibility of erring Secondly euery act euery habit is necessarily lincked with equall proportion of certainty or assurance with the certainty of the obiect of which it borroweth its dignity nature and forme Wherfore as the prime Verity and testimony of God so the habit and act of Fayth are both infallible Thirdly Fayth is an intellectuall Vertue which doth perfect enoble the faculty of our Vnderstanding which cannot receaue the dye of perfection from any other thing then that which is true because that only as all Philosophers teach is her proper peculiar obiect Hence it is that S. Paul describeth Fayth not only to be the substaÌ„ce that is the setled ground the constant and stablâ— foundation according to S. Dionysius of our hope but also an argument of things not appearing that is a firme assent a demonstratioÌ„ or Conuiction as S. Augustine sayth of our vnderstanding which cannot be obnoxious to any danger of falsity The
second Principle presupposeth that Faith must not only be infallible but whole also and entire Witnes S. Athanasius in the beginning of his Creed Whosoeuer doth not beleiue the Catholike faith wholy iâ—uiolably he shall vndoubtedly perish And S. Leo A great safeguard is faith entire true faith in which nothing can be added by any nothing deâ—racted because vnlesse fayth be one it is no fayth the Apostle auerring One Lord One fayth To which purpose our Sauiour himself auoucheth He that beleiueth not shall be condemned that is he that beleiueth not euery Article expresly or implicitely he that beleiueth not the whole summe of Christian doctrine shall incurre the forfaiture of his saluation For as all thinges are to be obserued whatsoeuer Christ commanded so all thinges to be beleiued whatsoeuer he taught and in such manner that albeit the mysteries in themselues are some of lesse some of greater moment some necessary some contingent yet as they are testified reuealed by God they ought all with equall certaintie with the same suretie to be credited imbraced because God in all things little or great necessarie or contingent is equally great of infallible credit Wherby euery Article is so fast riuetted and conioyned one with the other in such vniforme due proportion as they make sayth S. Gregory Nazianzen A Chayne truly golden and soueraigne From which if your withdraw but one you withdraw your saluation as S. Ambrose writeth The third principle is that the ordinary meanes of atteyning the whole and infallible fayth is from the mouth of the Church from the lipps of her Priests because fayth is by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ to wit by the word expounded and preached vnto vs by his lawfull Pastours for it goeth immediatly before How shall they heare without à Preacher and how shall they preach vnlesse they be sent Whervpon it necessarily ensueth that if they be sent from God to teach his heauenly doctrine if we be bound to beleiue vpon their testification and preaching their preaching must be certaine their testification vndeceiuable that we may securely receyue the word they deliuer not as the word of men but as it is indeed the word of God who by their mouthes speaketh by their testimony sealeth and witnesseth it vnto vs especially seeing he commandeth vs to heare them as himself to obey them as his Vicegerents to beleiue them vnder penaltie of damnation seing he giueth them the Holy Ghost to teach them all truth to sanctifie them in veritie that we be not carryed about with any winde of doctrine Therefore as God cannot immediatly by himself or mediatly by any other deliuer that which may be doubtfull or vncertaine so much lesse by the mouth of those his witnesses his iudges his interpreters by whome he vttereth the Oracles of truth as I might more fullie demonstrate if I had not already elswhere vncontrollably euicted and proued the same Yea the very nature and condition of fayth perforce requireth it for that being an assent of our vnderstanding to thinges not appearing that is not appearing true through the euidence of truth in themselues or through the light of humane reason but only by this Authority of God who testifieth them not immediatly but by the meanes of his Church by the true Pastors and expounders of his word if they might vary or fluctuate in the rules they follow of expounding Scripture their expositions were wauering their preaching vncoÌ„stant they could neither assuredly teach nor we vndoubtedly giue credit to that which they propose as to constant stable and immoueable truth For it is a warrantable position of M. Whitakers Such as the meanes be such of necessitie must be the interpretation it selfe But the meanes of interpreting obscurâ— places are vncertaine doubtfull and ambiguous Then it cannot possibly be but that the interpretation it self is vncertaine if vncertaine then may it be false But if it may be false as M. Walker acknowledgeth the interpretation of the Protestants Church may be it ouerthroweth the ground of fayth the foundation of Religion For what els can be or any of his fellowes assigâ—e on which they stay oâ— anâ—ker the certaintie of diuine beleife Their particuler pastor Their priuate spirit But if their Pastours in generall may trip and slumble how much more their particular If the publicke spirit of their Church be errable how deceiuable is their priuate Againe the priuate spirit is hidden it cannot be discouered and opened to others and yet it is open it self to a thousand illusions Therefore it must be tryed by some more known and certaine spirit What then do you build vpoÌ„ the voice of God that speaketh in the Scripture but that voyce is no other then the bare word or out ward letter of Holy writ of that ariseth our strife and debate That also speaketh most errably to you as your owne contentions and infinite hersies sprung from thence beare euident witnes If your reply that it speaketh inerrably to such a read and heare it with faith and humilitie as they ought you send me still a rouing in the wildernes of vncertaintie for how shall I know who they be that obserue those conditions as they ought And what is this as they ought after your Puritanicall or Caluinian manner Lastly let it be for this wil be your last and poorest refuge that the true Church of IESVS Christ hath alwayes such well known to him what is this to you if you know them not What if we disproue as we plainly doe your Church to be his Where are your humble Readers your faithfull interpreters Or to yield you the vttermost your can aske though most impudently begged at our hands let there be such Readers such Interpreters among you eyther they alwayes infallibly obserue the conditions specified interpreting still a right and then your Church by their direction contrarie to your Tenent can neuer erre Or they fallibly obserue them and so your Church may run astray it cannot be the pillar of faith the storehouse of truth the voyce or trumpet of supernaturall beleife as my last two Syllogismes printed by M. Walker vndeniably conclude which as long as they shall remaine registred in his Pamphlet so long shall it beare the record of his owne disgrace so long shall it proclayme the victorie of our Catholike cause so long shall the Protestant Church lie panting in the dust without life without strength without vitall breath Now let vs behold what new life M. Walker can breath into it to reuiue it againe Marry that a true Christian Church may erre for a tyme in some one fundamentall poynt necessarie to saluation he disputeth thus M. WALKER That which the auncient Apostolicall Church might doe other succeeding Churches may doe with the same successe But the Apostolicall Church might erre and did erre in a maine poynt and yet haue a true faith and was a true
Church Ergo Other Churches also M. SMITH I deny the Minor The Apostolical Church did not erre in a maine point of Fayth M. WALKER The act of Christs Resurrection from the dead taught in Scripture is a fundamentall point of Fayth The Apostolicall church did erre in it Ergo c. M. SMITH I distinguish the Minor The Apostles erred or rather were ignorant of the act of Christes Resurrection as a matter of fact I graunt the Minor as an Article of faith I deny it for it was indeed a diuine verity a true matter of fact at that tyme yet no article of faith M. WALKER Behold Gentlemen he denyeth the Resurrection to be an Article of faith M. Smiths Companion You wilfully abuse him he denyeth it not absolutly but only for that tyme because it was not then sufficiently promulgated M. WALKER Reach me the Bible I will shew the contrary in expresse words of Scripture So opening the booke he read how some of the Apostles knew not the Scriptures that he must rise from the dead how our Sauiour appeared to the eleauen Apostles and vpbrayded their incredulity and hardnes of hart because they belieued not them who had seene him after he was risen At this Syr William Harington houlding vp his handes sayd Oh I protest I neuer heard any poynt so playnely prooued M. SMITH Proued he hath proued nothing For I graunt the Apostles were slow in belieuing dull in vnderstanding the resurrection of Christ but I say it was not then an article of fayth which they were obliged expressely to belieue because it was not so clearely promulgated and proued vnto them as to bynd them vnder the payne of Heresy or note of Infidelity at that tyme to imbrace A Protestant Gentleman Say you soe Was it not expressely reuealed in Scripture sufficiently promulgated by Christ himself M. SMITH I acknowledge the reuelation of scripture the promulgation of Christ sufficient in themselues yet not in respect of the Apostles capacity for they were yet rude and weake of vnderstanding they had not as yet that inward illustration and light of the holy Ghost those outward motiues and arguments of credibility which did binde them to giue infallible assent to so deep a mystery They assented and belieued that all was true which Christ sayd all true which the Scriptures reuealed concerning his Resurrection yet they knew not whether the sense and meaning of those passages were to be taken truely or enigmatically properly or figuratiuely Of this only were they ignorant and this ignorance proceeded from their imbecillity and weakenesse and not from the insufficiency of holy Scripture The Gentleman satisfied with this M. Walker grauelled with the former answere his reasoning was at an end howbeit his brawling would haue no end for the foresayd distinction held him at such a bay as notwithstanding he bragged much of his dexterity in disputing yet with all his cunning Sophistry he could not so much as frame one argument one Syllogisme or Enthimeme against it But being in a monstrous rage because his pryde could not brooke such a fowle ouerthrowe I thought good to giue way to his chafing fit and so departed with these very wordes VVell well I perceiue my distinction hath choked your argument you are not able to proceed Now after that I arose and walked hard by the other Priest that assisted me explicating the answere that I had giuen sayd M. Smiths Companion It is not much to be meruailed that the Apostles at the first conceaued not aright the Resurrection of Christ for the Apostolicall Church was then in her infancy it was newly raysed not wholy finished begun but not perfected The Euangelicall law was deliuered yet not fully established And can this vndergoe the censure of any other doctrine then sound and orthodoxall Or could M. Walker iustly vaunt of any allegation he brought against M. Smith Then read and detest the arrogant style of an hereticall Impostor who blusheth not to print after his confusion these flourishing wordes M. WALKER M. Smith being put to silence with those proofes the other Priest to make vs this breach fled to another shift and denyed the Apostles to haue byn a Church at that tyme because the Holy Ghost was not yet come downe nor the Euangelicall law reuealed M. SMITH If you were not already returned in open Court for a willfull lyar forger false Prophet and Priest of Baal your wordes might beare some shew of credit but in so much as you are notoriously defamed for such an one I onely intreat the Reader to iudge whether I were silenced or you whether my Companion fled to another shift or defended the answere which I gaue Whether you haue not writhed his wordes to a faulty strayne of purpose to reprooue them For he denyed not the Apostles to haue byn at that tyme a Church nor that the Euangelicall law was reuealed but that it was not promulgated that the Church was not yet perfect or law cōplete For how could it be then fully cōplete when it wanted diuers guiftes and endowments necessary to the entyre complement and perfection therof When it wanted the spirituall comfort and inward Vnction of the Holy Ghost When it wanted her outward promulgation essentially required to the establishmēt of a law When it wanted the guift of tongues most requisit for the conuersion of all Nations When it wāted that vigour or strength of verity of which our Sauiour sayd Tarry in the Citty till you be endued with power from high How then M. Walker how could your conscience serue you to carpe or reprehend that saying of his strengthned and supported by such warrantable proofes To peruert and disorder the whole frame and methode of your owne disputation How could it serue you 1. To charge me with tearming the Apostles ignorance or hardnesse of hart an errour of forgetfulnesse 2. To faygne me to say that the Scriptures had not expressely reuealed how Christ should rise from the dead 3. To faygne that I intreated you to shew it me out of the Ghospell 4. That I persisted still how the Scriptures had not sufficiently reuealed it All most iniurious and hideous lyes Notwithstāding these leasinges of his or selfe-deuised fancyes he mustreth a band of three seuerall probations and graceth the last with the admiratiō or solemne acclamation of one of his Assistantes howbeit it was vsed vpon another occasion Such is euery where the iugling of that vain-glorious Sycophant yet he dischargeth me from the labour of refuting his arguments sith they are nothing else but engines raysed to batter the forts of his owne conceits which neuertheles he suffereth not to fall to the ground without the sound of his fellowes applause praysing himselfe for ouercomming himselfe in such a skirmish in which he is both the assayler and the assayled he the Maister and he the maystered idely conquering and basely conquered both at once Moreouer he reprooueth me for making a strange