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
distinction between a thing as he tearmeth it and it selfe because I sayd that the act of Christs Resurrection was a true matter of fact a diuine Verity yet no article of fayth which the Apostles then were bound expresly to belieue But is this so strange I will giue you an instance of the like strange distinction The validity of baptisme ministred by Heretiks was alwayes a diuine Verity alwayes a truth sufficiently reuealed in holy Scriptures in the first of S. Iohn and the third of S. Luke where it is written It is he that baptizeth Christ is the principall agent whose action cannot be frustrated by the faultes of his instrument yet this was not alwayes an article of fayth vntill it was publickly defined by the Consistory of Gods Church which caused Vincentius Lirynensis to free them from heresy who defended the contrary before to condemne such as persisted in vpholding it after the definition his wordes are these O wonderfull change and alteration of thinges The Fathers of one and selfe same opinions are adiudged Catholiques the followers Heretiques the maysters are acquitted the disciples condeÌ„ned the wryters of bookes shall be Sonnes of the kyngdome the maintainers of the same shall be cast into hell Finally M. Walker for his vpshot relateth the commendation a Catholike gaue him of his noble conquest after he was thus discomfited I reprint his words which he for very shame disguiseth vnder the cloke of a third person M. WALKER When the Priestes were very willing to make an end and the Protestant Gentlemen seemed well satisfied and made them ready to depart One of the Roman Catholiques calling M. Walker aside began to collogue and flatter with him telling him that he was a good Logician a good Linguist and well read and that God had giuen him a sharp wit and ready tongue and therfore no meruaile though he preuayled and made a good cause seeme bad when he opposed it and a bad cause seem good when he defended it M. SMITH Fye fie M. Walker Are you so greedy of a little vayn-glory as thus to blazon with your owne pen for you penned the whole summe though you maske it vnder another vizard the false lustre of your supposed talents Of such as neuer were acknowledged by any of your Pew-fellowes in CaÌ„bridge much lesse extolled by the mouth of a Catholike For I enquired of the GeÌ„tlemaÌ„ who coÌ„ferred with you he solemnly protesteth before God and man and is ready if need require to confirme it with his Oath yea and iuridically to diuulge it to all the word First that he neuer gaue you those high titles of commendation which you set downe Secondly that the Courtly complements he cast vpon you were meerely in iest by the figure of Ironia as the Wisedome of God iested at Adam after his fall saying Loe Adam is become as it were one of vs knowing good and euill yet such was your quick and subtile wit so worthy of admiration as it conceiued that to be spoken in good earnest which was vttered in derision to laugh you to scorne By which and by all the former passages euery indiffereÌ„t man may easily perceiue 1. How poore a Religion Protestancy is and how weake a Patrone heere she had who could bring no better propps to sustaine it then knauery fraudulency lyes and falsifications 2. How Thraso-lyke M. Walker boasteth of the Victory and endeth the scene of his fabulous discourse with that triumphaÌ„tsentence Magna est veritas praeualet Great is truth and it doth preuaile For vnlesse salshood may be inthroned in the chaire of Truth and Vanity possesse the seat of Verity farre too-too farre is he from preuayling who hath ben conuicted and notably disgraced with so many tergiuersations digressions forgeryes and grosse absurdityes who hath byn driuen to such shamefull begging of the principall question to grant that after which before he had denyed to deny that now which he formerly granted yea to a flat â—ntrariety and playne contradiction the greatest â—yles a Scholler can take He I say who hath byn â—ot only vanquished and defeated but chased out â—f the field at euery encounter In which neuertheesse if he had stood and vpheld his quarrell as God forbid he should seeth he not what horrible crimes he had layd to the Apostles charge What â—famies on their flock Seeth he not what a breach â—e had made in Syon What ruines in his owne IerusaleÌ„ For by attaching the Apostolicall Church of erring in a fundamentall point manifestly reuealed in holy Scripture and often intimated by the Sonne of God he attacheth it of Infidelity he enditeth it of Heresie and wholy depriueth it of the happy meanes of saluation For the entire profession of sauing truth as Caluin Field and other prime Protestants confesse with vs is necessary to the state of saluatioÌ„ which the Apostolical Church wanted when it erred according to him in that essentiall article of Christs Resurrection it wanted then the soueraigne meanes of attayning eternall blisse and so could not be the spouse of Christ the gate of life the temple of God or Church of his beloued sonne without all-sauing truth it is impossible to be his sauing Church The same is more strongly confirmed by the dotage it selfe M. Walker very dotingly laboured to proue or else proued nothing for his purpose That the Apostolike Church erred in a fundamentall point necessary to saluation For if it was necessary the Church could not be saued without it if it might be saued without it it was not an article at that tyme necessary to be belieued Neyther doth he only bereaue that pure and primitiue flocke of the riches of blisse of the integrity of fayth in that one he specified but by the same argument in all other points of belief For as by one mortall sinne the Vertue of charity is wholy expelled according to S. Iames He that offendeth in one is made guilty of all so by one only Heresy or act of Infidelity the habit of fayth is vtterly lost which S. Paul teacheth affirming that Hymenaus and Alexander made ship wrack of their fayth albeit they only denied one sole article to wit the future Resurrection of our flesh Which the Fathers witnesse when they auouch that such as fall into Heresy are degraded of the dignity and right of Christianity Which D. Whitaker also approueth saying If any one fundamentall point of doctrine be remoued the Church presently falleth Wherupon it followeth that the Apostolicall Church was presently buried in her owne ruines that the Apostles made ship wrack of their fayth that they were no Chistians when they beleeued not the Resurrection of Christ if then they were bound to receiue it as a fundamentall article of their beliefe Nay it followeth hereon that the whole fould of Christ for it was wholy no doubt inwrapped in the Apostles errour became ô monstrous impiety and most hellish consequence became I say a heard of
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
your translation being dissonant it must needes be not only a corruption of the text but a deprauation also of the sense of the Holy Ghost M. WALKER That cannot be the sense because the Priests vnto whome the Prophet speaketh there in the 2. of Malachy were Leuites and succeded Aaron in the Priesthood and yet they were departed out of the way they caused many to fall in the law by their corrupt glosse and their abuse of the couenant of Leui c. Yea some of them had sacrificed to Idols as Iosephus sheweth in his history M. SMITH As though it were necessary for al Priests that haue lawfull calling to be free from errour or such as are fensed from erring in fayth should neuer be able to stumble in their liues It is inough for the infalibility of Christs Spouse that the high Priest and his Consistory that the head of the Church her generall Councels be inerrable It is inough that God doth preserue his truth in the mouthes of vicious and wicked men as in the mouthes of Scribes and Pharisies when they sate on Moyses his Chaire as the guift of prophesie in Ciaphas of whom S. Iohn recordeth that he prophesied because he was high Priest of that yeare Seest thou sayth S. Chrysostome how great the power of Poâ—tâ—sic â—ll authority is Grâ—ce 〈◊〉 touched the mouth but not the â—ewd and villanous â—art And S. 〈◊〉 of naughty pastours auoucheth Will they nill they c. they shall speake the wordes of God by reason of the promise which heere and els where he hath made them M. WALKER God did not make heâ—re a promise but gaue a commandement teaching what the Priests and people should do and ought to do like that Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me M. SMITH In respect of the people I grant it is a Commandement of God that they ought to learne and require the law from the mouthes of the Priests And I wonder how you presume to infring this coÌ„maundement by sending them from their publick voices to your secret spirits or hidden perswasions Then by your owne coÌ„fession because it is the coÌ„maundement and Precept of God which the people as you write ought to obey it must needes follow that his Priests haue his infallible promise and assurance of truth otherwise the people could not with security repayre vnto them otherwise they might erre and be deluded by them in matters of fayth they might be frustrated of their hope forfeite their saluation euen by following the expresse will and commaundement of God which without open blaspheâ—y cannot be auerred The same is manifestly declared by the reason the Holy Ghost assigneth why the lippes of the Priest shall keepe knowledge because he is the Angell of the Lord of Hostes Hâ— is called saith S. Cyrill the Angell of the Lord of Hostes because he deliuereth vnto meÌ„ the Oracles ofâ—iod â—dding nothing withdrawing nothing but eâ—en the same â—e recâ—iued of God S. Chrysostome The Priest is the Angell of our Lord he speaketh nothing of him selfe if thou despise thâ—u despisest not him but God Moreouer if this were only a commaundemeÌ„t giuen to Priests by way of direction what they should do why did not your Translation expresse it according to the Hebrew in the future teÌ„se as they did other Commaundements Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me Thou shalt not steâ—le Thou shalt not commit adultery c Surely their conscience gaue them that something more was heere coÌ„prized or els they would neuer haue altered the moode and tense they would neuer haue bin more affrayde of translating this commaundement truly agreable to the Originall then they were of others This chaÌ„ge this alteration pleadeth them guilty for let the sense be what it will though I haue euidently demonstrated it to be as we teach Either the Holy Ghost knew better then Protestants what tense he should vse to expresse that sense or they better then he Did they know better O how detestable is their blasphemy in ascribing more knowledge to men theÌ„ to God! Did he know better O how diuclâ—â—sh was their arrogancy in presuming to alter the Tense oracled by the Holy Ghost which he knew to be best knew to be most fit for the explication of his meaning This is such a horned argument or vnauoidable dilemma as neither M. Walker nor any other Minister is able to answere Another corruption though more cunningly conueyed is discouered in the 4. of Daniel v. 24. or 27. where the English Bible hath Breake off thy sinnes by righteousnes c. insteed of Redeeme thou thy sinnes with Almes For in the Latine it is Redime in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew in rather in the Chaldeak it is Peruc of Perac the roote which also signifieth to Redeeme M. WALKER That translation is senseles and against all reason for God neuer appoynted that mens sinnâ—s should be redeemed M. SMITH Your proofe indeed is without sense or reason it is that idle Petitio principij of which you haue bin often accused yet for meere want of wit can neuer auoid Haue you no better stuffe to alleadge then this M. WALKER Yes if you vnderstand that Nabuchodâ—nozor â— wicked Heathen King should by his owne righteousnes redeeme himselfe from his sinnes you make Daniel a teacher of Heresie and blasphemie M. SMITH You are spitefully bent stil to wrangle or els you must needes know I vnderstand it not of his owne righteousnes For Daniell exhorteth him to frequent almesdeedes which first by way of congruity might procure Gods fauour and after deseruedly redeeme or satisfie for the punishment of his sinnes Which is a heauenly point of fayth inculcated againe by the Holy Ghost in the Prouerbs By mercy and truth iniquity is redeemed or purged as your owne Bible readeth though that which followeth in your Pamphlet be a most horrible and monstrous slaunder that Papists goe on in knowne sinne in hope of absolution by confession and pennance when we constantly teach that neither of them can auaile without detestation of sinne and full purpose of amendement To this slaunder is ioyned another of his notable leasinges reporting me to haue sayd that Peruc signifies only to redeeme wheras I confessed at the beginning that it signified to destroy redeeme breake in peeces breake asunder but neuer to cease to doe or breake off a worke as their translation runneth Syr Edward Harwood Well if the word doth import to breake in peeces and we haue to breake off then me thinkes the differeÌ„ce seemes but small This was that he spake but he sayd not as M. Walker outfacingly belyeth him that M. Smith had fayled much in his prâ—ofe he was of a more mild and generous disposition theÌ„ euer to let fall any such speach M. SMITH The lesse the difference may seeme the more pernicious if it iarre as this doth froÌ„ the harmony of Fayth for the word in his natiue
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 of Iesus Christ nor That it hath his true faith I demanded of M. Walker whether the true Church be alwayes visible or no M. WALKER The true Catholike Church is not visible because it comprehendeth the whole companie of the elect of which the greatest part being Saynts in heauen are without the â—each of mans eye and cannot be seene M. SMITH My question is not of the Church Triumphant in heauen but of the true Catholike Church Militant vpon earth M. WALKER But thus your wordes and question cohere not togeather for it is as absurd to say that the Catholike Church is militant on earth as it is absurd to affirme that all mankind euen the vniuersall race of Adam are now liuing M. SMITH Was S. Cyprian then absurd who called the militant Church vnited and conioyned in the vnion and linke of Priests adhering togeather The one Catholike Church To communicate with Cornelius the head only of the militant was to communicate with the Catholike Church Was S. Augustine absurd who tearmeth the militant Church whose communication we must hold The Catholike Church The militaÌ„t Church dispersed ouer the face of the earth The Catholik Church The militant Church in which alone one baptisme may be wholesomelie obtayned The one incorrupt Catholike Church The militant Church in which by imposition of handes the holy Ghost is giuen The only Catholike Church The Church in which good and euill be as chaffe and corne The Catholike Church The Church in which the sacrifice of bread and wine in faith and charity ceaseth not to be offered throughout the vniuersal world The holie Catholike Church But to presse you no further with the testimonies of men was the Sonne of God absurd when he sayd Other sheepâ— I haue that are not of this fold theÌ„ also I must bring they shall heare my voyce there shal be made one fold one Pastour Who were these other sheep but either Predestinate or many of them at least To what Fold were they brought Without doubt to Christs visible to Christs militaÌ„t to Christs Cath. Church for to no other would he bring them no other is his fold no other his one and that singular one of which he is chiefe and supreme Pastour Therfore not your inuisible but the visible and militant is the true Catholike Church of IESVS Christ Neyther are the Predestinate as you pretend before they be called meÌ„bers of his Church because this is the oracle of Truth They are not of my fold So much by the way for this Now that you may cease your wrangling and stick no longer in ambiguity of tearmes I tell you once agayne that I speake not of your Catholike and Inuisible but of that militant Church which we are bound to obey and heare that of whose Communion we ought to be that of which Christ sayd diâ— Ecclesiae Tell the Church What hold you of this Iâ— this Church visible or no M. WALKER I distinguish That Church may be two wayes considered either in regard of her outward men outward duties of Christianitie outward preaching of the Word and administration of the sacraments and so it is visible Or in respect of the inward election inward faith and spirituall graces and so it is inuisible A Catholike Gentleman Reserue your distinctions vntill you neede them and now answere directly to the Question M. SMITH Aske me any question and try whether I will vse any such tergiuersation What is your Conscience so horride or cause so bad as you dare neuer giue a direct answere M. WALKER I answere as I belieue M. SMITH And doe you not belieue what your owne men teach concerning this poynt Doe they not teach that the Church which we ought to heare is visible Or may we heare an inuisible Doth not D. Whitaker define it by these markes to wit by the true preaching oâ— the word and the true administration of the Sacraments And although he addeth that the whole Essence of the Church consisteth in them yet he sayth that these markes signifie and denote a visible Church Now doe not you belieue as he doth Or are you afrayd to confesse that Church to be visible which he confesseth Man consisteth of an inuisible essence yet is a visible man so the Church may haue some inuisible dowries yet be a visible Church M. WALKER You wronge D. Whitaker He neuer taught that the whole Essence of the Church consisted in the true peaching of the word and administration of Sacraments M. SMITH I wrong him not He teacheth writeth and diuulgeth it in print though you wrong both your self and vs in making these digressions and picking euery occasion to run from the matter M. WALKER Dare you stand to this that M. Whitaker writeth it I haue bâ—th read him and studied him I am sure he hath no such matter M. SMITH His bookes are extant you studied theÌ„ sleightly or vnderstood them not I am sure he hath it M. WALKER Because I will not spend tyme in contesting with you let this be the issue before these Gentlemen let vs send for D. Whitakers workes and if I doe not shew that he doth proue against Bellarmine that the Catholike Church iâ— inuisible that this is a mayne poinâ— large lie disputed by him and a mayne controuersie betweene him and Bellarmine let me branded with the marke of a wilfull liar M. SMITH Will you still fly to the ambush of your hidden Church Shall I neuer bring you into the open field Haue I not sufficiently inculcated vnto you that my question is of the Church now militant on earth of that Church which we ought to heare and obey of that which M. Whitaker describeth by the marks before mentioned of that which your selfe distinguished to be partly visible partly inuisible And run you now back againe to your counterfait Catholike and wholy inuisible Church Are you so sodainly distracted of your wiâ—s as not only to forget what I had sayd but what your selfe had written immediatly before Yet perhaps I may mistake It proceeded not so much from the giddines of your braine as from the guiltines of your coÌ„science which mistrusting the vaine vnaduised chalenge you made would now like a cunning Cheater by foysting in these words guilefullie diuert it to a quite coÌ„trary purpose For I neuer denied that M. Whitaker forgeth an inuisible Catholique Church but I so often canuased you froÌ„ straying thither as coÌ„mon sense might haue taught you to keep on your way staÌ„d to your tackling in mantaining the quarrell or saucie exception you tooke against me for saying that M. Whitaker placed the whole essence of the Church in the true preaching of the Word and true administration of the Sacraments This was that which then I sayd Against which you contested as before your words to deliuer the contestation truly as it was I must in part repeate againe leauing out that counterfait passage which you
of meer fraud so treacherously insert 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
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
Miscreants a band of Infidells a den of Apostataes The chast and vndefiled spouse of Christ I dread to think it fell to be an Adulteresse his pure Virhin the harlot of Sathan And because that which befell the Apostolicke Church may by M. Walkers owne Logick befall in lyke manner vnto all other Churches the Protestants Church not only by meere possibility but actually also may be stayned with Heresies tainted with Apostasie blinded with Infidelity wholy reuolt and fall from Christ. And if once it may doe so we caÌ„ at no tyme as I haue already declared be infallibly certain that theÌ„ it doth not so we may alwayes doubt or feare at least that now it doth so On the other side because our Sauiour testifieth of his Church that it cannot possibly be diuorced from him that it is an euerlasting Kingdome not possible to be ouercome not by the gates of hell that it is guarded by the Holy Ghost neuer able to be misguided that it is a pure Virgin not able to be spotted with any disloyalty The spouse of Christ cannot play the adulteresse sayth S. Cyprian Therfore the Protestantes Church which may really be naught may actually fall and prostitute her selfe to some filthy or distoyall errour can by no means be the true Spouse the true Church the true Kingdome or Campe of Christ nor enioy the dowryes possesse the treasures of his inerrable Truth FINIS Laus Deo Deique genitrici Mariae Ruffin in Apol. pro Orig. Aug. in breui Collat Tanner in relat compâ—nd de collat Ratisb Idem apparet ex protocollo Isa. 〈◊〉 v. 15. Psal. 5. v. 7. Hier. â— v. â— The first Copie which miscaried was carried in all likelihood to Mâ— Walker that he may be furnished before hand with his Replie Yet M. Rogers among his articles to which this minister did or ought to haue sworne hath The visible Church is a Catholike Church art 1â— Cyp. l. 4. ep 9. Idem ep 52. Aug. de ver a relig cap. 7. Idem ep 170. contra Crescon l. 1. ca. 29. de baptis contra Donatist l. 3. ca. 16. Tract 6. in Iohan de fiâ—e ad Petrum cap. 19. Ioan. 10. v. 16. Math. 18. v. 17. VVhitaker â—cntro 2. q. 5. ca. 17. 18. See how cunningly he diuerteth from his owne exception and from D. Whitakers expresse wordes who sayeth Quaestio non est de notis inuisibilis Ecclesiae c. The Question is not of the marks of â—â—e inuisible Church Contro 2. q â— ca. 18. fol 494. cap. â—1 Nos non inuisibilis Ecclesiae sed veras certasque nâ—tas visibilis Ecclesiae quaerimus VVhitak in respon ad 3. rat Camp VVhitak â—ontro 2. q. 5. cap. 17. 13. Vt causae effection profâ—â— c. ita veritas Ecclesiâ—â— constitute â—â—â—sque causâ— est VVitak in resp ad 3. rat CaÌ„p Hanc tu definitionem in natiuis ipfius rei quam definimus c. Controu 2. q. 5. ca. 17. Quae definiunt ea denotant Ecclesiam c. Sic quid sit Equus Leo Aquila ex definitione eâ—icitur Contro â— q. â— c. 18. In resp ad 3. rat CaÌ„p â—stas nos Ecclesiae verissimas atque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprietates esse defendimus It is the second of his â— Conclusions printed at the end of his Confedance ProtestaÌ„ts can chalenge no more certaynty then all other heretikes haue done Their ridiculous answere that they cannot erre as long as they speake true c. The first Corruption of the Protestants Bible argued and euinced In which they haue altered both the mood tense written by God Isa. 5â— v. 〈◊〉 Luc. 10. v. 16. Deut. 17. v. 8. 9. These diuers other passages which I heer omit I haue more largely discussed in the 3. part of my Antid chap. 1. 2. â— Ioan. 11. v. 51. Chrysost. hom 4. in â—oan Aug â— de Pasto. cap. 10. Velint nolint pastoresverba Dei dicturi sunt Exod. 20. Malae â— v. 7. Cyril in hunâ— loâ—uÌ„ Chrys. in â— ad Tâ—moth Exod. 20. A dilemma vnanswerable The second corruption examined and proued to be such Prouerb c. 16. v. 6 M. Walker in his printed summe pag. 25 Ibidem Exod. 3â— v. 2. Genes 27. v. 40. VValk in his printed Summe pag. 27. Matth. â—0 v. 24. 25. Helias Leuita in Praefat. Massorethi Rabbi Dauid Kimki in Psal. 60. Galat. l. 1. c. 8. vltimo Genebrar in suo Chronol ad an 476 Lindan de opt gen l. 1. cap. 6. Senensis l. 8. haer 13. Arias Montanus in Praefa ad Biblia Vivâ— hoe habeat illud omnibus in constanti certeue est vocalium notarum inuentionem consonantibus Haebraicis minimè esse coequam This was his saying though M. Walker setteth a false glosse vpon it Athanas in synop Aug. q. 49. Theod. in Deutrono q. 1. Cornesius de Lapidâ— sup Deut. in proâ—m Some other corruptions brieflie vrged 1. Cor. 2. I pray you brethren keepe my Ordinances The like â— Thessa. 2. Math. 15. VVhy do you transgresse the CommauÌ„dements of God by your Traditions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 20. 〈◊〉 but 2. Thessal 1. they translate it truely Psal. 118. v. 112. ad Rom. 5. v. 17. 18. 21. Act. 13. v. 2. Reynolds in his 2. Conclus VVhitaker contro â— Aug. lib. de mendacio cap. 8. Fayth doubtfulnes caÌ„not comply togeather of one the same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— parua M. Walker was affrayd this last argumeÌ„t of mine should come to light therefore he purposely suppresseth it in his SuÌ„me Aug. coÌ„t Maxim lib. 2. Three remarkable principles â— Ad Heb. â— v. 18. 8. Thom 1. 2. q. 1. art 3. Scholast 3. dist 24. 25. Ad Heb. 11. v. 1. Dionys de diui nom cap. 7. Aug. lib. 13. de Triâ—iâ— cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 2 Principle Leo. ser. 4. in solem Natiu Ephes. 4. Mar. 16. v. 16. Math. 28. v. 20. Greg. ora 37. Amb. ad â— 9. Lucae l. 6 The 3. principle Rom. 5. v. 17. Ibid. v. 14. 1. Thes. 2. v. 2â— Luc. 10. Ioh. 16 17. Ephes. 4. In the 3. Part of my An tid chap. â— and 6. VVhit cont 2. q. 4. pag. 221. This argument crosseth it selfe in termes for if the Church erred in a fundamentall poynt it was not true if true it erred not Io. 20. v. 9. Mar. 16. v. 14. M. Walker silenced with the first distinctioÌ„ made against him Loe the vanitie of a vanquished minister 8. Thom. â— â— q. 90. art 4. Luc. cap. 14. v. 48. Are not these Ministera wicked children a lying seed Ioan. 1. v. 33. Luc. 3. v. 10. Vincent contra Propha cap. 11. Oh the pride Oh the folly of this man Gen. 3. v. 22. Esdr. 3. c. 4. v. 41. Caluin â— 4. Instit. c. 2. §. 1. Feild in 2. booke of the Church c. 3. 4. Iaâ— 2. v. 10. 1. Tim. 1. v. 20. Aug. l. de har â—eron â—du Lucif c. â— VVhitak cont 2. q. â— c. 1â— Note the blasphemles which ensue of M. Walkers argumeÌ„t and the misery of ProtestaÌ„s who cannot make their false Church true vnlesse they make the true Church false Osee 2. Dan. 2. v. 44. Luc. 1. Matth. 16. 2. Corinth 11. Cypr. tom â— epist. 73.