FIRST then it is false , that I chalenged any Minister to dispute : I onlie yelded for the satisfaction of Syr William Harington , to giue a meeting to any whom he should bringe . Secondly , it is false , that I was assisted by any more Priests then onlie one , by any more Catholikes then foure ; I for solemnelie conditioned at the beginning , that there should be no more then fiue or six persons at the most on a side : to the end the Conference might be verie secret , and priuate , without concourse of people , or noyse abroad , for feare of affoarding disgust vnto the State , in that our quiet tyme of peace and conniuencie . Which conditions I punctuallie obserued , though the Aduersarie was so bold as to violate and infring them , both by bringing more then the appointed number , as by publishing also the whole discourse , to the open view and sight of the Realme ; yet so fraudulentlie , so corruptlie , as forceth me to this right and vnfaygned replie . Then , although it be true , that I intreated the disputation might be performed sweetlie , and with all mildnes , without bitter wordes , or reproachfull taunts ; yet M. Walker made no such answere as he hath forged in his Pamphlet . True also it is , that I excepted against the vnmannerlie tearmes of calling our Church Whore of Babylon , the Pope Antichrist , & desired no such odious Epithetes might be vsed , now especially when it pleased the Kings Maiesty to send to his Holines for a dispensation for the mariage of our Noble Prince ; Yet I sayd not , that his Maiestie sued to his Holines , or gaue the Pope that honour : The awe of reuerence I bore to so mightie a Monarch did temper my tongue from vsing any such wordes , as seemed to carry the least shew of distast . At length that we might proceed more solidelie , and not floate vp and downe vpon vncertaynties , I desired we might both agree in some generall positions , or irreuocable Tenents , as grounds of our ensuing dispute . Wherevpon being to proue , That the Protestants Church is not the 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 ?

The true Catholike Church is not visible , because it 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. 1● . comprehendeth the whole companie of the elect of which the greatest part being Saynts in heauen , are without the ●each of mans eye , and cannot be seene .

My question is not of the Church Triumphant in heauen , but of the true Catholike Church Militant vpon earth .

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 .

Was S. Cyprian then absurd , who called the Cyp. l. 4. ep. 9. militant Church , vnited and conioyned in the vnion and linke of Priests , adhering togeather , The one Catholike Church ? To communicate with Cornelius , the head Idem ep. 52. only of the militant , was to communicate with the Catholike Church ? Was S. Augustine absurd , who tearmeth the militant Church , whose communication we Aug. de ver a relig. cap. 7. Idem ep. 170. contra Crescon . l. 1. ca. 29. de baptis contra Donatist . l. 3. ca. 16. Tract. 6. in Iohan ▪ de fi●e ad Petrum cap. 19. must hold , The Catholike Church ? The militant 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 sheep● Ioan. 10. v. 16. I haue , that are not of this fold , them 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 militant , 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 , members of his Church , because this is the oracle of Truth , They are not of my fold . So much by the way for this . Now that you may cease your wrangling , and stick no longer in ambiguity of 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 , di● Ecclesiae , Tell the Math. 18. v. 17. Church . What hold you of this ? I● this Church visible , or no ?

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 .

Reserue your distinctions , vntill you neede them , and now answere directly to the Question .

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 ?

I answere , as I belieue .

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 Whitaker ●cntro 2. q. 5. ca. 17. & 18. true preaching o● the word ; and the true administration of the Sacraments ? And although he addeth that the whole Essence of the Church consisteth in them ; yet he 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 .

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 .

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 .

Dare you stand to this , that M. Whitaker writeth it ? I haue b●th read him , and studied him , I am sure he hath no such matter .

Because I will not spend tyme in contesting with 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 ●●e inuisible Church . 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 i● inuisible , & that this is a mayne poin● large lie disputed by him , and a mayne controuersie betweene him and Bellarmine , let me branded with the marke of a wilfull liar .

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 wi●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 conscience ; 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 contrary purpose . For I neuer denied that M. Whitaker forgeth an inuisible Catholique Church ; but I so often canuased you from straying Contro . 2. q ● ca. 18. fol 494. & cap. ●1 . Nos non inuisibilis Ecclesiae , sed veras certasque n●tas visibilis Ecclesiae quaerimus . thither , as common sense might haue taught you to keep on your way , & stand 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 .

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 contrary out of his owne writings , then shall you confesse 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 .

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 ●●c●et & internall : yours only knowne to the eye of sense , his to the understanding & eye of faith : Contro . ● ▪ q. ● . c. 18. 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 In resp. ad 3. rat . Camp . ●stas nos Ecclesiae verissimas atque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprietates esse defendimus . 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 ?

This is a captious and ambiguous question , & cannot directly in one word , negatiue or affirmatiue , be answered vnto .

No ? D. Reynolds answereth affirmatiuely , that It is the second of his ● Conclusions printed at the end of his Confedance . 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 ▪

But thus euerie Hereticall Assemblie is also infallible . Protestants can chalenge no more certaynty , then all other heretikes haue done . 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 ?

Yes , because Iewes , and Turkes adhere not to the word of God , they follow not the truth , we doe .

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 Summe 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 them to auouch Their ridiculous answere that they cannot erre , as long as they speake true &c. ( 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 ?

I haue told you alreadie , how it may erre , and how it may not .

I denie the Minor .

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 .

The Antecedent hath two parts , the first of them I declare by induction . Malachy 2. v. 7. where The first Corruption of the Protestants Bible argued and euinced . all true copies haue ; The lippes of the Priest shall keepe knowledge , and the law they shal● 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 Iism●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 .

We haue not corrupted the Hebrew text , for the true meaning of the Holy Ghost is perfectly deliuered by our Translation .

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 , o● Subiunctiue moode , as our translation hath ; therfore it is no● different , nor irregular from the Hebrew , which is the Originall .

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 corruption ? 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 .

It was ●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 succeed Moyses , or the Apostles locally , in the church by a continued succession .

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 consonant & 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 Isa. 5● . v. 〈◊〉 . Luc. 10. v. 16. 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 , 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. & ● . 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 .

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 .

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 Po●t●sic Ioan. 11. v. 51. Chrysost. hom. 4. in ●oan . Aug ▪ ● . de Pasto. cap. 10. Velint , nolint pastoresverba Dei dicturi sunt . ●ll authority is ? Gr●ce 〈◊〉 touched the mouth ▪ but not the ●ewd , and villanous ●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 .

God did not make he●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 . Exod. 20.

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 commaundement , by sending them from their publick voices , to your secret spirits , or hidden perswasions . Then by your owne confession ( because it is the commaundement , 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 blasphe●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 Malae . ● . v. 7. Cyril . in hun● lo●um . Chrys. in ● . ad T●moth . Lord of Hostes H● is called ( saith S. Cyrill ) the Angell of the Lord of Hostes , because he deliuereth vnto men the Oracles of●iod , ●dding nothing , withdrawing nothing , but e●en the same ●e rec●iued of God . S. Chrysostome : The Priest is the Angell of our Lord , he speaketh nothing of him selfe : if thou despise , th●u despisest not him , but God . Moreouer , if this were only a commaundement 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 tense , as they did other Commaundements ; Thou shalt haue no other Exod. 20. Gods but me : Thou shalt not ste●le : Thou shalt not commit adultery & c ? Surely their conscience gaue them , that something more was heere comprized , 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 change ▪ 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 than to God! Did he know better ? O how diucl●●sh was their arrogancy , in A dilemma vnanswerable . 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 The second corruption examined , and proued to be such . 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 .

That translation is senseles , and against all reason : for God neuer appoynted that mens sinn●s should be redeemed .

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 ?

Yes , if you vnderstand , that Nabuchod●nozor ● wicked Heathen King should by his owne righteousnes redeeme himselfe from his sinnes , you make Daniel a teacher of Heresie , and blasphemie .

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 Prouerb . c. 16. v. 6 ▪ your owne Bible readeth : though that which followeth in your Pamphlet be a most horrible , and M. Walker in his printed summe pag. 25 ▪ Ibidem . 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 .