PRIMS Full-text transcription (HTML)

A DISCOURSE OF DISPUTATIONS Chiefly concerning matters of Religion, with Animadverſions on two printed Books, (mentioned in the Contents following next after the Epiſtles:) The latter whereof, at the requeſt of Dr. John Bryan, (for Cenſure and Advice) being ſeriouſly peruſed; The Author of it, JOHN ONLEY, is thereupon convinced of Error, Slander, and of arrogant, uncivill, and unchristian miſcarriage, not onely towards him, but all the Refor­med Churches of the world, out of the way of his moſt affected ſingularity.

By John Ley, Rector of the Church of Solyhull in Warwickſh.

1 King. 18.36.

Anſwer him not.

Dial. inter Aug. & Hieron. Tom. 4. oper. Hieron. p. 397.

Non de Adverſario victoriā, ſed de mendacio quaerimus veritatē.

WHERETO IS ADDED A Conſolatory Letter to Dr. Bryan, &c. upon the death of his worthily well-beloved and much bewailed Son Mr. NATHANIEL BRYAN: Which immediately followeth after the Diſcourſe of Diſputations.

LONDON, Printed for Nath: Webb and Will: Grantham, at the black Bear in St. Pauls Church-yard, over againſt the little North door, MDCLVIII.

To the VVORSHIPFULL My much Honoured Friend, RIGHARD HOPKINS, Eſq; STEWARD of the City of COVENTRY.

SIR,

IN the publication of theſe papers, I could not but conceive you had ſome intereſt, as a friend to the cauſe and perſon moſt medled within them; nor to him onely, but to all the(a)(a)Dr. Briaes. Dr. Grow. Mr. Baſnet. three religious and learned Miniſters of your City, wherein (methinks) you much reſemble Geneva for number and quality, when it enjoyed an holy Triumvirat of Farellus, Viret, & Calvin, in that order Beza nameth them in the life of Calvin, and giveth them their ſeveral characters, ſo as of all three to make up one(b)(b)Saepe mihi in mentm veniprfectum quo­dammedo vide­ri poſſe paſto­rem qui ex tri­busillis eſſet conflatus. Beza in vitam Cal­vin. p. 8. perfect Paſtor. I ſhall doe thoſe renowned reformers no wrong, if I ſay of your Preachers, that each of them is complete in himſelfe without his partners: Such hath been the proficience of the Pulpit (both by preaching and praying) ſince their times, and more in England then elſewhere; as divers Travellers (who have had opportunity to know, and ability to judge; and many forraign Divines, who underſtanding our language, have read our printed Ser­mons, and compared them together with thoſe of o­ther Nations) have cenſured. I teſtifie this truth the rather, becauſe, though there be ſome difference in judgement, (bleſſed be God it is not great) yet there is no diſſenting in affection among them. Religious du­ties are unanimouſly performed: Chriſtian ſociety and Miniſterial brotherhood ſweetly maintained, and all offices ſuitable to ſuch relations, mutually and affectio­nately exchanged: to whoſe concord and communion, I ſhall make bold to apply His Highneſs Eulogium of the Army in his Narrative from Briſtol, Sept. 14. 1645. in(c)(c)Engl. Reco­very. part. 2. p. 118. theſe words; Presbyterians, Independents, all have here the ſame Spirit of Faith and Prayer, the ſame preſence and anſwer, they agree here, and have no names of difference: Pity it is it ſhould be otherwiſe any where.

Now as I have matched your City with Geneva for your Miniſters, ſo I wiſh your City-Magiſtrates may match theirs in vigilancy, vigour, and good effects of Government, who (as Bodin, a famous French Papiſt, maketh the report of them)(d)(d)Ridiculum eſt ad legem eſſe bonos; allam cenſuram quâ nil magis ac di­vinius cogitari potuit ad coer­cendas hominū cupiditates la­tenter primùm, & amicè, quam ſequitur animadverſio magiſtratuum. Jo. Bod. Method. Hiſt. c. 6. p. 245. Ita fit ut quae legibus nuſquam, &c. igitur nullae meretrices, nullae ebrietates, nullae ſaltationes, nulli menaici, null otioſi in ea civitate reperiuntur. Ibid. holding it a ridiculous thing, to be good onely by good Lawes, follow Con­ſiſtorian Cenſures againſt the Contumacious, with ci­vil Animadverſion of the Magiſtrates. Hence it com­meth to paſs that thoſe vices which no where elſe, are there reſtrained, ſo that there is no whoredom, no drunken­neſs, no dancing, no beggars, no idle perſons to be found in that City.

My hopes come up the higher toward my wiſhes hereof, becauſe you do not onely encourage your able, watchful, and painful Paſtors many wayes eſpecially, as the Apoſtle admoniſheth, Heb. 13.17. by your Chri­ſtian compliance with their holy Miniſteries, (ſeconded by their exemplary practice) but you do the like to your learned, pious, and induſtrious Schoolmaſter,(e)(e)Mr. Samu­el Frankland. al­ſo with the ingenuous and hopeful youths under his inſtitution. This you manifeſted in a very eminent manner, when the laſt year Mr. Major, with your ſelfe, the Aldermen, and many other ſubordinate Citizens, came in a venerable equipage to the Free-School, to grace their exerciſes with your preſence and audience: & though I cannot ſay with intelligence, of all or moſt, becauſe a good part of it was Greek, (a ſtrange Tongue even to the Roman Prieſts, and that byggGraecum eſt non poteſt legi. (Proverb) yet ſome did underſtand it; more the Latine: and the plea­ſantneſſe of their voices, the gracefulneſſe of their elo­cution and action, the fidelity of their memories, pre­ſented a gratefull experiment to ſuch as were skilled in neither of them, and exerciſed no faculty ſuperiour to ſence and fancy. hhIt is under conſultation I heare hereaf­ter to give ſome reſpe­ctive enter­tainment to ſuch in their Native Lan­guage.But that which the wiſer ſort of Spectators and Auditors of all ranks (I conceive) chiefly intended, was, to profeſſe themſelves opponents to the late illiterate Sects, who cry down Schools and Univerſities, and would have our Miniſters no more learned then the Italian Friers of the order of S. Ig­norance, who (as Luther writeth of them) were forced to ſolemn oathes that they would neither know, learn, or un­derſtand any thing at all, but ſhould anſwer all queſtions with neſcio Now if you had confined your beneficence to the Miniſters and other profeſſors of learning within your own City-walls; I ſhould have held my ſelf the leſſe obliged to this publick acknowledgement: but, Sir,iiLuther, Collo­quia menſalia, or Divine diſcourſe at his Table. c. 40. p. 415. it is too extenſive in this kind to be either perſonally or locally limited. So that if the Arminians had not rendred the expreſſion ſuſpected of hereſie, I would call it Univerſall Grace, or Catholick charity. (to our whole reformed Tribe, and to all ingenuous Students their allies) if the Papiſts had not ſoiled that word with a ſavour of their Ubiquitary errour. I have this confidence by intelligence from ſuch as (upon ex­perience) own you as a Patron of their juſt cauſes, in taking timely cognizance of them, and giving your efficacious countenance unto them: and to my ſelf, you have been pleaſed, (though yet I have had none opportunity to be any way ſerviceable to you) to an­ticipate my deſires, in the offer of your favour. For all which (in my brethrens name, and mine own) I profeſſe my ſelf,

Sir,
Your ſincerely devoted ſervant, JOHN LEY.

ERRATA.

IN the Epiſtle to Samuel Ebrall, Eſq; in the ſecond Page l. 6. r. Mr. O. Pag. 1. l. 7. dele two. r. Parentheſis. p. 2. l. 18. r. your. p. 3. l. 5. r. altercation. P. 4. in marg. r. arrogantia. p. 5. l. 5. r. 40. in marg. r. 26. r. Roſcius. l. 29. r. diſcover­ed. p. 6. r. l. 20. r. Trapp. l. 18. r. Butler. p. 7. l. 1. r. catholicks. p. 8. l. 19. r. may. p. 10. l. 11. r. Venice. p. 15. marg. r. quod. p. 16. l. 37. r. challenges. p. 19. l. 25. r. 1. of God. p. 21. l. 24. of man. p. 22. l. 11. r. Genoa. l. 29. r. all night. p. 26. l. 1. r. rightly in marg. r. deletum. p. 28. l. 2. r. diſſentire. l. 8. adde for. p. 29. in marg. r. Poſſed. p. 34. l. 6. r. to. l. 22. r. things. in marg. r. ab. p. 35. l. 26. r. Expoſitors. p. 37. l. 5. r. the. p. 38. l. 29. r. Papinus. p. 41. l. 12. r. Phflugius. p. 44. l. 5. adde day. p. 46. l. 33. add theſe. l. 34. adde Campian. l. 35. adde, the Conference. p. 47. l. 15. adde, it. p. 48 Chap. V. Contents of the Chap. adde with the cauſes of them. l. 22. r. was. p. 49. l. 1. r. two. p. 51. l. 20. r. 1574. p. 53. l. 31. adde, it. l. 36. adde, as. l. 38. adde forenoted. l. 39. r. ſome. adde, a doubt. d. 54. l. 8. dele is. p. 55. l. 15. dele in another Chapter. p. 58. l. 10. adde, as a fained. l. 34. add, to doubtful debate. p. 62. l. 17. dele for. l. 33. dele for Coſterus. p. 63. l. 7. r. and. l. 19. r. Coſte­rus. p. 69. l. 3. r. fifty. l. 16. adde In. p. 94. l. 1. r. hinges. l. 26. adde them. p. 95. l. 21. adde, a man to ſleep. p. 97. l. 8. r. helpleſs. p. 100. over againſt. l. 6. r. in marg. So in the Diſputation at Kenelnsworth publiſhed by Mr. O. P. 50. p. 124. l. 10. r. like.

To the VVORSHIPFULL my very worthy Friend, Samuel Ebrall Eſq;

Sir,

YOu were an hearer (as I have heard) of the Diſputation at Killingworth betwixt Dr. John Brian, and John Onely, but (as he hath ſet it forth in print) it would be more ſuitable to ſay Dr. John Onely, and John Brian; ſo far hath the arrogancy of the man magnified himſelf, without due reſpect to the modeſty of a Chriſtian, the ingenuity of a Scholar, and the diſcretion of an ordinary rationall man; and ſo much hath he vilified the Doctor (in another book publiſhed by him ſince) whom all men (who know him, and are of any note for Learning and Religion,) highly honour for a very eminent degree of them both: and for his excellent faculty, and indefatigable diligence in Preaching and Catechiſing, there be very few who are com­parable to him Nor do I know Mr. Onely his match among the Antipaedobaptiſts, (as he calleth his Aſsiſtants at the diſ­putation at Kill. ) for inſolence of Spirit, ſupercilious con­tempt of ſuch as are not taken with his Tenets. Some I am ſure there are who though they have too much affinity with ſome of his fancies and opinions, ſhew much manſuetude and civility to thoſe that ſteer their Miniſteriall and Chri­ſtian courſe by other principles; yea and they hold religious communion with them in publick ordinances not distinctive. But Mr. Onely, as he hath a name of ſingularity, ſo he is the fitter to be the ringleader of ſome notorious Schiſme; like Primianus a Donatist in the Collation at Carthage, to whom, if a denomination had been given him (out of a time of faction) according to his learning and manners, it muſt have been, not Primianus, but Ultimianus. This with my diſcourſe of Diſputations in matter of Religion, mine ani­madverſions on the printed Diſputation hold at Kill. and on Mr. D. his ſecond book, and my deſired advice to Dr. Brian, (concerning it) whether to anſwer him or no; I have preſented to publick view, with a particular addreſſe unto your ſelf; that of a true and intelligent witneſſe, you may become an equall and competent judge of the difference betwixt the Dr. and Mr. O. ſuper tota materia as now it is drawn out in his ſecond book: and I was glad of this oc­caſion to teſtifie how much contentment I take in the ſitua­tion of my Reſidence, as in vicinity to yours, whereby I have the opportunity of enjoying your good neighbourhood, your friendly viſits, and many other affectionate offices; whereto there ſhall be no want of any anſwerable returnes which come within the capacity of the hearty prayers, and beſt obſervance of

Your faithfull friend. and humble ſervant JOHN LEY,

For the very Reverend his highly honou­red Friend, Mr. Iohn Ley, Paſtor of Solyhull.

Reverend Sir,

YOur Conſolatory Letters I cannot ſufficiently bleſs God and You for, and therefore do again return my moſt humble and hearty thanks for your very great la­bour of love therein expreſſed, withal earneſtly craving leave to make them publick; the doing whereof, will (I am aſſured) redound much to the glory of God, erecting many ſouls dejected for the like loſs, and furtherance of your own glorious reward in the great day of account and refreſhing, which ſhall come from the preſence of the Lord.

Sir, there is another trouble fallen upon my ſpirit, wherewith I take the boldneſs to acquaint you; occaſioned by an Examination of ſome of my Ar­guments for the truth of our Parochial Churches by my Antagoniſt John On­ley, which hath been abroad (as I hear) a long time, but lately came to my no­tice by a Miniſter 20. miles diſtant. I find the Book ſo full of bitterneſs and arrogancy, that I queſtion whether it be better to let the man alone, or to anſwer him according to his folly: I have ſent it to you, requeſting your peruſal there­of, and your advice what I ſhall doe (with all convenient ſpeed) which ſhall lay a further Obligation upon.

Sir,
your Fellow-labourer in the work of the Lord, and bounden ſervant, JOHN BRIAN.

To which Letter of Dr. Brian, a ſhort and ſummary anſwer is returned in the next leaf; a full one in the whole diſ­courſe following.

A Table of the Contents of each Chapter.

CHAP. I.
HOw ſome have been, and are averſe from, or adverſe to diſpu­tations in Religion, how far, and for what reaſons. pag. 3.
CHAP. II.
Of a contrary diſpoſition in ſome too much addicted to diſputation, in being too forward to make, or accept of offers of dispute, and mul­tiplying of needleſs and preſumptuous queſtions and reſolutions in matters of Religion. p. 12.
CHAP. III.
That disputations on matters of Religion are warrantable by Scripture and Reaſon, and not onely lawful, but ſometimes alſo ex­pedient and profitable. p. 17.
CHAP. IV.
An Hiſtorical collection of Diſputations of ſeveral ſorts, princi­pally concerning differences in matters of Religion, in two Sections; the 1. Containing examples from the Apoſtles to Luther. 2. Of examples from Luther to the preſent age. p. 31.
CHAP. V.
Of the various iſſues and ſucceſſes of Conferences, Colloquies and Diſputations about matters of Religion. p. 48.
CHAP. VI.
How Disputations are to be ordered, that the truth may be clea­red; and being cleared, both it and they who plead for it may be ſe­cured from reproachful miſreports. p. 57.
CHAP. VII.
Of the Diſputation at Kenelmworth, betwixt John Brian Dr. in Divinity, Minister at Coventry, and John Onley, Paſtor of a Church at Lawford (as he calls himſelf.) How it was occaſioned, undertaken, and continued at divers monthly meetings there. p. 73
CHAP. VIII.
Of the printing of the diſputation. By whoſe motion it was made. By whom, and how managed. p. 76.
CHAP. IX.
Of Mr. John Onley his quality and condition, his wit and ut­terance, his ignorance and arrogancy, his reproachful ſpeaking of ſuch as are not of his Sect, and partiality to himſelf and them; his carping at the Magiſtrates for medling with matters of Religi­on, and countenancing of Miniſters. p. 80.
CHAP. X.
A Concluſive Anſwer to Doctor Brians deſire of Advice, whe­ther it be better to let Mr. O. alone, or to anſwer him according to his folly; ſent him a good while ago by his Son, but now publiſh­ed with enlargment for ſasisfaction of others as well as of the Doctor himſelf. Reaſons many and weighty for the Negative. p. 102.
1

A DISCOURSE Of DISPƲTATIONS Concerning matters of Religion.

Reverend Sir,

THough you would not uſe the liberty I gave you for correction of the long conſolatory diſ­courſe I ſent you,aa〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Saph. Carm. p. 58. Edit. Henr. Steph; in 12. Cum Pindaro & aliis Lyri­cis Poetis Graecis. which (I am glad to perceive by your reſpective return) was as well taken by you, as intended by me: Yet have I made ſo bold with your ſhort gratulatory Letter, as to expunge the two Parentheſis of the two firſt lines, as comming too near the poeticall hyperbole, uſed in the praiſe of the Poems of Sappho, wherein though your errour of brotherly love might be excuſed, my errour of ſelf-love would not be pardon­ed, if I ſhould be ſo vain as to own your Encomium as due to any dictate of mine; all I can juſtly claim being no more then a witneſſe to my good will, and endeavour to do well. Waving then that part of the reaſons of your requeſt for publication of it in print, I am content upon the account of the reſt which you have rendred, to give it up to your diſpoſall, in hope of the good effects which (as you preſage) it may produce. And for the ſecond part of your Letter, wherein you make juſt com­plaint of Mr. John Onely his injurious dealing with you, and deſire mine advice, Whether it were better to let the man alone, or to anſwer a fool according to his folly; you ſhall have mine an­ſwer2 with my reaſons, but firſt I muſt tell you that I no ſooner put pen to paper for that purpoſe, but I found my ſelf by what I have read and obſerved of the diſputations of the precedent and preſent age, both minded of, and moved to an Enlarge­ment of my labour, beyond the limits of your requeſt and ex­pectation: So far as while I pay a debt of love to you, to make others indebted unto me (by your occaſion, and for your ſake) by delivering ſomewhat of importance, and (I hope) alſo capa­ble of their acceptance, which haply would not have come to their notice by another hand; and this the rather, becauſe I do not think Mr. O. worthy of ſo much of my notice and reſpect, as of purpoſe to appeare in publick againſt him, or any man of his temper and condition: It will be enough for him to be brought in as an occaſion or an appendix to that which is of more moment. I ſhall then thus divide my diſcourſe; treating

1. Of Diſputations in generall concerning matters of Re­ligion.

2. Of our Diſputation with Mr. J. O. in particular, as by him it is publiſhed, and his examination of ſome of your Argu­ments, ſet forth in print, to ſet forth himſelf as a Triumphant Antagoniſt (for his Sect,) not onely over you, but over all the reformed Churches throughout the world. Of whom when I come to that part, I ſhall give you my ſenſe and apprehenſion as he deſerveth; and mine advice touching an anſwer to him as you deſire, and I conceive to be moſt convenient.

Firſt for the Generall, I ſhall reduce it to, and comprehend the whole in the firſt ſix enſuing Chapters, as their contents are ſet down in the foregoing Table.

3

CHAP. I. How ſome have been and are averſe from, or adverſe to diſputations in Religion: how farre and for what rea­ſons.

SOme are not altogether againſt diſputations in Religion, but are jealous over them with a godly jealouſy, as Paul was over his Corinthians, 2 Cor. 11.2. leſt they ſhould be in­conſiderately undertaken, or indiſcreetly managed, and ſo asbbIſti dum ni­mium ſcalpunt veritatem a­mittunt (ut a­cutusille mimi verſiculus;) ni­mium altercan­do veritas a­mittitur. Lu­dovic. Vives de cauſis cor­ruptar. artiū. l. 3. p 127. Ludovicus Vives ſaith; The truth by too much ſcratching and alte­ration ſhould be loſt; leſt errour by artificiall arguments and orna­ments ſhould have ſuch a glorious flouriſh and varniſh ſet upon it, as to make it to be taken for the truth: which is not unlike to fall out; for ſomeccInterdum orichalcum ma­gis exprimit co­lorem auri quā aurum ipſum. Ibid. Copper (ſaith he,) hath a more glorious Luſtre then ſome true gold. And nothing, asddNihil eſt tam incredibile quod non di­cendo fiat probabile; nihil tam horridum, tam incultum, quod non splendeſcat oration. Cicer. paradox, Prooem. p. 436. Num. 3. Cicero obſerveth in the prooeme of his Paradoxes, is ſo incredible, but by elequence it may be made to appeare probable. Nothing is ſo horrid, but by a garniſh of words it may be made to ſhine. This impoſture is ea­ſily put upon the vulgar; foreNihil tam facile quàm vilem plebeculam linguae volubilitate decipere, quae quicquid non intelligit plus admiratur. Hierom. ad Nepor. de vita Cler. Tom. 1. p. 14. it is very eaſy with volubility of tongue to deoeive the ſimple common people, who What they do not perceive with understanding, they receive with admiration; nor can theyfGarrulitatem authoritatem putant. Idem. Epiſt. Ocean. vol. 2. p. 324. put a due difference betwixt garrulity and authority: And they are commonly more affected with what they ſay who gainſay ſolid and long believed verity under pretence of new diſcoveries of truth; and errour then with what hath warrant from the word of God, and conſent of all the Chriſtian Churches of the world, both of ancient or of later times: and the fallacy takes with them the more tenderly, becauſe theſe4 Novell Dogmatiſts make a faire profeſſion of mortification and ſelf-deniall, refuſing thoſe advantages and accommodati­ons of a comfortable living, which their oppoſites do enjoy; and bear themſelves boldly againſt authority, as if they meant to merit that Elogium which the Diſciples of the Phaiſees with the Herodians gave of our Saviour, Mat. 22.16. Maſter we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God truth; neither careſt thou for any man, for thou regardeſt not the perſonſ of man. And therefore they ſet up what Religion they pleae, making their conventicles when and what they pleaſe, and in them ſpeaking of God and man what they pleaſe, that which is fitter to be whiſpered in the dark or rather buried in eternall ſilence, then as Divine dictates, as our Saviour would have them, publiſhed on the houſe-top, Luk. 12.3. yet that their more private carriage of their profeſſion in Chimnie-houſes, where there is ever more ſmoke then light, may not be interpreted to their prejudice, as if they had not conſcience and confidence to own their tenets in publick; they have preſumed many times, even the weaker ſex hath ſo much ſtrength of fan­cy and will, as to offer to ſet up their new lights in our ſteeple­houſes, and to call our Preachers down from their Pulpits, as having no calling from God to be Preachers of the Goſpel: and herein many of the ſhallower fort do ſo applaud them­ſelves, that they had rather appeal to them to be their judges,ggFactus eſt populus ſpecta­tor, arbiter, Index. Ludo­vic. Vives. de cauſis corrupt. artium. l. 1. p. 38. as ſome judicious writers have obſerved, then to any others; &hhInde arro­gantia, quod aliquod ſibi vi­derentur quia ſtulto judici videbantur. Idem l. 3. p. 327. they arrogantly applaud themſelves in their approbation. But that which maketh the wiſer ſort more unwilling to give too much way to religious diſputations, or rather to diſputations of Religion (eſpecially in publick) is the ſubtilty of ſome of unſound principles & the ſimplicity of others of a better belief; who ſuſpect­ing no deceipt, & confiding in the ſtrength of truth, are eaſily in­tangled with ingagements to diſpute to the greateſt diſadvantage of their cauſe, not forethinking how their adverſaries may be fur­niſhed for aſſault; and what liberty of miſreport they will take, either to make ſhew of victory, or to ſhadow a foil; this inconvenience is obvious to an ordinary apprehenſion: But there are ſome ſtratagematicall depths, and policies of thoſe who are Maſters in the Myſteries of iniquity, both of the old5 and new Antichriſtian faction, which I confeſſe my ſhallow­neſſe had not imagined, had I not been informed of them by a double teſtimony of good account and credit; the one was told me by a Learned Scotchman, a great Traveller, when we met and became well acquainted in Oxford, which though above 4 yeares ago I very well remember it was thus. The Proteſtants of Luthers and Calvins profeſſion have had many diſputes and conferences in ſeverall places, whichiiThe Prote­ſtants have had above 100 meetings, con­ferences, diſpu­tations, coun­cels and Sy­nods, from their firſt diſ­putation held at Lypſia upon the year 1519 to their ſynod in Vilna, 590. So Parſons Preface to the 10. diſputati­ons recounted by John Fox, v. 26. he takes his ingelli­gence from. Staniſlaus Reſ­caus his obſer­vations, and meanes, though he do not particu­larly quote his Book, wch he calleth Miniſtromachi­am, in qua E­vangelicorum Magiſtrorum & Miniſtro•••de evangelicis magiſtris & miniſtris mutua judicia Teſti­monia &c. recenſentur. E••uſ. Cole­niae. apud Henric. Fal­ken. birg. 1522. Parſons numbers to above a 100. betwixt them; at one of their meetings, which brought them near a concluſion of accord, there came in a man in the name of a Lutheran Miniſter, which deſired to be heard, and he was admitted to ſpeak; and he ſo ſet up ſoothed and animated the Lutherans, to ſtand out againſt all comply­ance with the Calviniſts, and ſo exaſperated the Calviniſts with reproch, that they went away worſe minded towards each o­ther, then they were when at firſt they met together. The o­ther cunning device was, of ſome of our Engliſh Sectaries about the yeare 1647. And that was a plot upon a diſpute managed in this manner; ſome of them had provoked a Miniſter (lear­ned enough for his time, but too young to match them in ſub­tilty either of caution or of contrivance) to a publick diſpute, which he accepted of: and though he acted his part as well as could be expected of one of his parts and yeares, yet he rather loſt then gained reputation to his cauſe or perſon, becauſe one of their ſide pretending himſelf till then to be of a contrary judgement to theirs, at the cloſe of the diſpute, openly profeſ­ſed his conviction and converſion to their party by the ſatis­faction he had received at that diſputation; whereas it was af­terward dicovered that he was a great Zelot to that cauſe and party in former times, which (together with the other particu­lars fore mentioned) induced me to propoſe unto my Brethren of the Miniſtry of Cheſhire, when they met to ſubſcribe their at­teſtation to the Miniſters of London, Jun. 1648. (the penning whereof by their unanimous vote they put upon me) that no Miniſter might make or take up a challenge for a ſet disputation upon any point of Religion, without conſultation and conſent of his Brethren, who ſhould judge

1. Whether it ſhould be disputed on or no; if ſo

6

2. How the disputation ſhould be ordered, that the truth, and thoſe who are advocates for it, may be clear and ſecured from circumvention and ſlander. The like (upon an eſpeciall occa­ſion) I moved to my fellow. Miniſters at our meeting at Kil­lingworth in Warwickſhire, and in both (viz. that in Cheſhire, and this in Warwickſhire,) as many as met together (who were a conſiderable number) ſignified their conſent, by ſubſcription to what I propoſed, in theſe words:

At the meeting of the Miniſters at Kenelmworth re­ſolved and agreed upon; That no Miniſter of this Aſſociation, either offer or undertake any publick Diſputation con­cerning any point of Religion, but in ſuch a manner, and order, and time, as ſhall be concluded of by the conſent of the brethren of the Society.

  • Iohn Bryan.
  • Obadiah Grew.
  • Iohn Ley.
  • Daniel Eyres.
  • Iohn Trat.
  • Thomas Hall.
  • Thomas Dugard.
  • Anthony Woodhall.
  • Alexander Bean.
  • Henry Buller.
  • Luke Milbourn.
  • Samuel Hawes.
  • Thomas Evance.

Beſides theſe religious conſiderations which moſt concern Miniſters to look unto, there is another, which upon a Civil account belongs moſt to the Magiſtrate, viz. the preſervation of the publick peace, much endangered by a numerous con­courſe of people of adverſe principles, for debate of their differences. From which will hardly be ſeparated that peſt of concord, asrrConcordiae pe­ſtis vincendi pertinax libido. Eraſm. Epiſt. praefix. operi­bus. Hilar. p. 5. (Eraſmus calleth it,) a pertinacious deſire to conquer the adverſary; which may be like to break out into opprobri­ous words, and from ſuch words it may be to blowes and bloud-ſhed. Therefore S. Paul clearing of himſelf from Ter­tullus his accuſation, of moving ſedition among all the Iewes throughout the world, Actq 5. he ſaith v. 12. that his ac­cuſers neither found him in the Temple diſputing with any man, nor raiſing up the people, neither in the Synagogues, nor in the City; implying that diſputation did diſpoſe men to popular7 diſturbance; and with reference to the affinity betwixt the one and the other, the Catholick meeting in a leſſe number then the Donatiſts, (for a publick diſpute) made this advantage of the dif­ference, viz. That if any tumults ſhould ariſe the diſorder could not in reaſon be imputed unto them who were fewer, but to their ad­verſaries that in number exceeded them. Pauciores ca­tholici q••m Donatiſlee ſi tumultus eſſet minori numero non impatare­tur Auguſt. Operts brevicu­li collat. Prae­fat. Tom. 7. part. 1. p. 686. Though ſometimes there is more danger of commotion from a few turbulent Spi­rits on the one ſide, then of a multitude of ſober minded Ci­tizens on the other; whereof you had evidence enough at your City Coventry, when thoſe who came as abetters to Mr. Knowles and Mr. Kffns contestation, againſt you and your brother Dr. Grewe, behaved themſelves ſo rudely, that the Committee re­ſiding there thought it neceſſary to forbid your diſputes, and the City-Magiſtrates denyed the uſe of their Town-Hall for that purpoſe, though they had promiſed it before their coming, when there appeared no ſuch perill of breach of the publick Peace, as after their coming they ſoon perceived. How it came to paſſe, that (notwithſtanding the declared unwillingneſſe of the Committee and Magiſtrates of the City againſt the publick diſpute,) you fitted them with a publick place and polemical entertainment, who came ſo far out of their way, as from London to Coventry to quarrell with you, I ſhall ſhew in a more convenient place: And (to go on with obſervations of like ſort) I very well remember that in London (when Sir, Iohn Gayor was Lord Major) there was a diſputation betwixt Mr. William Ienkins then Preacher at Christ-Church, and Mr. Benjamin Cox, in Mr. I. his houſe, at which I was preſent, be­ing invited by Mr. I. And at the end of that diſpute, there was another reſolved on betwixt Mr. Iames Cranford, and the ſame Mr. Cox, and that within a few dayes after; but before the time concluded on I had occaſion to bring his Lordſhip a lift of ſuch Miniſters as I thought fit to be Preachers at Pauls, as he had requeſted me to do; and then I telling him (the diſcourſe we had inducing me to it) the diſpute be­tween Mr. I. and Mr. Cox, and that I was preſent at it, and that another was intended and concluded betwixt Mr. Cran­ford and Mr. Cox within a while after; he replyed, that he would have ſuffered neither of them, if he had had timely ad­vertiſement8 of them both; but ſince the one was paſt and could not be recalled, he would ſend his warrant to prevent the other; and that it might be certainly and ſpeedily done, he put me upon it to draw up a form of prohibition of it: which I did, whereupon the parties ſerved with it deſiſted from their purpoſe. There was another diſputation more publickly be­ſpoken, and as I have heard agreed upon to be betwixt your two, Cov. Antagoniſts, and Mr. Calumy, at his Church in Al­derman-bury; but ſuch animoſities of Spirit, and ſymptomes of tumult began to ſtir, and to gather near the time and place of the publick meeting, that there was great cauſe to fear, that how ever it fared with the truth, the common peace would be much endangered, if that concourſe were not hindred; and therefore by the civil Magiſtrates it was forbidden, and as in du­ty it was requiſite, accordingly forborn.

And I doubt not of Religious Civil Magiſtrates, though their proper office ſerve principally for the preſervation of peace among the common people, but ſome of them have the leſſe liking of diſputes in Religion, becauſe they fear it muſt be prophaned by polemicall conteſtations of ſuch as arellHoc morbi fe­re innatum eſt hominum inge­iis, ut cedere neſciant. E­raſm. ubi ſu­prà too stout to ſtoop to the truth, and ſommEſt hoc per­tinaciae ple­riſque morta­lium ingeniis inſitumut, quod ſemel quocunquecaſu pronun­ciaverint, nun­quamu••…de­ſinant, etiamſi compe­rerint perperä pronunciaſſe. Ibid. p. ult. pertinacious in their opinions, as not to recede from what they have pronounced, nay though they ſee their errour, and that they have pronounced amiſſe: and this E­raſmus obſerveth as a diſeaſe and infirmity naturally incident to moſt men. And as the Magiſtrates are publick perſons, if withall they be religious, they cannot think it fit the common intereſt in ſacred and Catholick truths of doctrine and practiſe, ſhould be permitted to private perſons to toſſe to and fro, (as a Ball betwixt two Rackets) in wrangling altercation. This moved the Emperour Marcianus, in ratification of the Conn­cel of Chalcedon,nnNe cui am­plius liceret publicè de fide differere. Baron. Annal an. 452. num. 1. Tom. p. 187. to decree that none ſhould publickly diſpute of matters of Faith;ooClericus fuerit qui, &c. conſortio clericorum movaur; fi militia praectnctus ſit, cingulo spoliabitur; caeteri ſanct iſſima ur­be pellantur. Baron. Ibid. num. 4. col. 688. and he laid a penalty on ſuch as preſumed to act contrary to what he had decreed: as for Clerks, to be put out of the number of the Clergy; for a Souldier, that his helt and ſword ſhall be taken from him; for Citizens, to be expelled the City; and for others, their contumacy was to beppCompetentibus ſuppliciis ſubjugandi. Ibid. ſubdurd with other competent puriſhments.

9

There are two great oppoſites to each other, too oppoſite to all diſputations of Religion, the Turke and the Pope; who though their Pride make them ambitious of the higheſt place, the head, their wickedneſſe makes them worthy of the loweſt, the taile, Deut. 28.44.

1. Firſt for the Turk, Mahomet, (that famous impoſtor and falſe Prophet, the founder of that impious and impure Sect of the Mahametans) not onely forbids all diſputes about the Religion of his Bible, (rather Babell) the Alcoran, but inſtructs his deluded diſciples how to anſwer them who are diſpoſed to diſpute:qqTecum diſpu­tare volentibus dic, Deum ſo••…omnes tuo; actus agnoſcere, qui die poſtremo lites omnes & contrarietates diſcutiet. Alcaroni. c. 32. Say unto them, (ſaith he) God alone knowes all thy acts, and at the laſt day will diſcuſſe all controverſies and contrarieties. Again,rHomines incredulos ta­liter alloquere; ego quidem legem veſtram minime ſequor, nec vos meam; igitur mihi mea maneat, vobiſqueveſtra. Ibid. c. 109. to incredulous men ſay thus, I follow not your Law nor you mine; therefore let me alone with that which is mine, and I will let you alone with yours.

2. For theſſNobis nullum fas eſt inire certamen cum hominibus com­munionis alie­nae; divina ſcriptura prae­dicante homine haereticum poſt primam & ſe­cundam cor­reptionem de vita. Tom. 3. Concil. p. 625. Col. 2. edit. Bin. 1636. Pope Gelaſius decreed againſt diſputation with thoſe who are of another Communion; for which he pretends the authority of the Apoſtle Paul, A man that is an Heretick after the firſt and ſecond admonition reject. Titus 3. v. 10. tQuaeritur anliceat clericis de fide Catholica diſputare publicè. Neg. Azor. Inſtir. Moral. l 8. c. 26. 1 part. p. 569. Azorius the Jeſuit in his morall inſtitutions putteth this queſtion, whether it be lawfull for Clerks to dispute publickly of the Catholick Faith? And he anſwereth negatively, and quotes for it A decree of the Trinity and Catholick Faith: and for lay perſons the Popes prohibition is expreſſe and peremptory,uInhibemus ne cuiquam Laitae perſonae liceat de fide Catholica dispatare. Sext. decretal. l. 5. Tit. 2. de Haereticis. we inhibit (as unlawfull for) any lay-man publickly to diſpute of the Catholick Faith. And if there bewAzorius Ibid. p. 571. Col. 1. any diſputes of matters of Faith, betwixt Catho­licks and Hereticks publiſhed in any Mother-Tongue, they are forbidden in their Index of prohibited books.

Qu. But did not Bellarmine read his controverſies or diſ­putations of the difference between the Popiſh and Proteſtant Religion, at Rome? and (amongſt other queſtions) did he not10 diſcuſſe the capitall queſtions, of the Popes ſupremacy and in-infallibility, as well as others of inferiour titles?

Anſ. He did ſo, and becauſe he ſtood up as a Champion, for the Antichriſtian Creed and Church, he was allowed to do ſo, eſpecially there where his hearers were wilfully fortified againſt the true faith: But ſo little is any diſputation liked by thoſe who are moſt Popiſh, that as a very wife and obſervant Tra­veller informeth us, (in his judicious Book called Europae spe­culum, or a view or ſurvey of the ſtate of Religion in the We­ſtern parts of the world;) that hexxSir Edw. Sand. Europae. ſpecu­lum, p. 121, 122. ſought for the controverſies of Card. Bellarm. in verity in all places; but neither that, nor Gre­gorie de Valentia, nor other Popiſh School-men, nor any of that quality could be ever in any ſhop of Italy ſet eye upon: which made me (ſaith he) entertain this ſuſpicious conjecture, that no part of the Proteſtants poſitions and allegations ſhould be known; they were ſo exact as to make diſcurrent (in ſome ſort) even thoſe very books which were constrained to cite them, that they might refute them; in ſuch wiſe as not to ſuffer them to be commonly ſaleable, but one­ly to ſuch, and in ſuch places as the Superiours ſhould think meet. And it is not an improbable opinion of ſome, that Bellarmines diſpatations are the leſſe pleaſing to the Pope and his deareſt favourites, becauſe he citeth our Authors too fully, and ſet­teth on their arguments further then his anſwers reach to take them off. And for the point in hand, diſputation is the moſt cryed down in Italy, the Popes Country, above other places: for as the ſame prudent Author obſervethyyIbid. p. 117. as in the foundation of the reformation (which is the Scripture) ſo much more in the edifice it ſelf, the Doctrines and Opinions of the reformed Churches, they bear away all ſound and Eccho of them, being not lawfull there to alledge them, no not to glance at them, not to argue nor diſpute of them, no not to refute them: he goeth on; In ordinary commu­nication (ſaith he) to talk of matters of religion is odious and ſuſpi­cious; but to enter into any reaſoning, (though but for argument ſake, without any other ſcandall) is prohibited and dangerous: yea it was once my fortune (ſaith he) to be half threatned for none other fault then for debating with a Jew, and upholding the truth of Chriſtianity against him; ſo unlawfull there are all diſputes of Re­ligion whatſoever, &c. Ibid.I believe him there in the rather, becauſe11zzAzor. Inſti­tut. part. 1. l. 8. c. 26. p 571. col. 2. Azorius confeſſeth, they are ſo jealous of all diſputations, as that they will not allow of a confutation of the Alcora n in any Mo­ther-Tongue: Not that they care either for the Jewiſh or Tur­kiſh Religion, but that if they muſt be ſo much ſecured from common contradiction, much more muſt that which they call Roman Catholick, eſpecially for thoſe points which concern his Holineſſe indiſputable and all diſputative priviledges, to whom Papall Paraſites appropriate that of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 2.14. The spirituall man judgeth all things, yet he himſelf is judg­ed of no man: But, the cauſe common to them both (why the Turkiſh and Popiſh Religion are ſo tender over their Tetets, that they may not be touched by diſpute) is, for that they are like the apples of Sodom, which how fair ſoever they ſeem to the eye, if they be handled they fall unto aſhes and ſmoke,aaJoſeph. of the wars of the Jewes, l. 5. c. 5. fine capitis. as Joſephus recordeth, becauſe they have no ſolidity of truth that can en­dure the triall.

Having ſhewed in the precedent diſcourſe how averſe many have been from diſputations in Religion; why and how far and how adverſe the Mahometans and Papiſts are unto them; I will adde but one obſervation more under this Title of Diſpu­tations in Religion concerning the Pope and his party of this generation, who (beſides the reaſon wherein by their diſlike of them, they agree with the Turks (which is a part of their Turco papiſmus, as Dr. Sutlive hath entitled a book againſt them) are vehemently bent againſt them (where their power is moſt predominant) out of pride and diſdain of all Religions but their own, eſpecially of the Proteſtants, becauſe they have done them the moſt diſhonour and damage; and becauſe by the domineering decrees of the Councell of Trent, and by the Tyrannicall authority of the Inquiſition, they are better able to oppoſe them, then by Diſputations and Arguments from Scripture or reaſons; and for this reaſon among others is the PopiſhPope Paul the fourth ſaid it was the principall ſecret and Myſtery of the papacy. Hiſt. of the Council of Trent lib. 4. p. 405. and the true Ram to bear down hereſie and defend the Apoſtolick Sea. Ibid. p. 409. rather thenThe very name of the Inquiſition is terrible all Chriſtendome over, and the King of Spain with his Grandees tremble at it. Howels famil. Letters. Vol. 1. Let. 44 p. 236. Spaniſh inquiſition, though ſet up princi­pally againſt the Iewes and Moores, carryed on ſo cunningly and cruelly againſt the Proteſtants, that the Biſhops and other12 of the Popiſh Clergy might not be put to too much paines in ar­guing with them; as it was ſaid by ſome who wrote againſt the Engliſh Biſhops, for preſſing ceremoniall conformity with too much rigour;bbSo in the beginning of a Dialogue betwixt Dio­trephes a Bi­ſhop, Tertullus a Papiſt, Pan­docheus an In-keeper, and Paul a Preacher of the word of God. that the clink and the Gate-houſe (two com­mon Gaoles) were the ſtrongeſt Arguments they had to main­tain their cauſe; but they were as houſes with paper walls in compariſon of the Priſons of the Pope-holy inquiſition, as, thecSee the Spaniſh Hiſtory l. 28. p. 1031, and à p. 1119. à. 1123. and 1134, 1135. Spaniſh Hiſtory, beſides other writers, have reported it.

CHAP. II. Of a contrary diſpoſition in ſome too much addicted to diſ­putation; in being too forward to make or accept of of­fers of diſpute, and multiplying of needleſſe and pre­ſumptuous queſtions and reſolutions in matters of Reli­gion.

IN the precedent chapter we have ſhewed how averſe from, or adverſe to diſputations in matters of Religion, ſome have been, how far, and for what reaſons: There are others (of ano­ther mind) ſo diverſe from them, or contrary to them, that their difference maketh a juſter ground of diſpute then diverſe others which are drawn out into many and long debates. There have been and are ſome men (to pretermit with contempt that daring BedlamiteTheaura John taking upon him to be high Prieſt of the Jewes, ſet up a challenge to both the Univerſities of Oxford & Cambr. and proclaim­ed it with a three-fold O yes to anſwer his printed Dotages in Pauls-Church. April. 5. 1652. Theaura Iohn) who having an high opinion of their own good parts for knowledge and utterance, think their eminence cannot be ſufficiently known, nor they enough admired and honoured without publick oftenſion, I might ſay oſtentation, of it in a polemicall concertation. This was the hu­mour13 ofddLeontinus Gor­gius primus auſus eſt in conventu poſ­cere quaeſtionem, id eſt, jubere da­cere quadere quis velit aude­re; audax ne­gotium dicerem & impudent, niſi, &c. Cicer. de finibus bo­nor. & malor. l. 2. princip. libri. Gorgius Leontinus, of whom the Roman orator no­teth, that he was the firſt that took upon him to demand a queſtion, that is, to aske the people what queſtion they deſired to be diſ­puted, and they ſhould preſently heare him diſpute and diſ­courſe of it. A bold buſineſſe, ſaith the orator, I would ſay an im­pudent too, but our later Philoſophers have taken example by him for the like undertaking. And if not by imitation of heathen Phi­loſophers, yet by naturall corruption have divers Chriſtian pro­feſſors been puffed up to the like degree of vain glory; being proud of thoſe preeminences for which by the Apoſtles admo­nition and caution they ſhould have been rather humble and thankfull: for he would have none to be puffed up againſt ano­ther for any abilities they have and others have not, 1. Cor. 4.6. and he pathetically expoſtulateth with ſuch as think too well of themſelves, and diſdain others: who maketh thee to differ from another (ſaith he,) and what haſt thou that thou didſt not receive? now if thou didſt receive it, why boaſtest thou as if thou hadſt not re­ceived it? v. 7. that is, as if it were thine own of thy ſelf, without being beholding to another, eſpecially to God, who might have made him whom thou contemneſt glorious, and thee contemptible. It is probable that Iohn Picus Earle of Ma­randula (ſo much admired for wit and learning, as that he is ſti­led,eeTheologorum & philoſopho••…ſine controver­ſia principis ſic in titularipag. operum cudit. Baſil. quam Se­baſt cam. Hen­ric Petriann. 1519. without controverſie, the Prince of Divines and Philoſophers) might be lifted up with appreheaſion of his own excellent en­dowments, and the applauſe of men when he put forth a kind of challenge to the Chriſtian world, to disputeffNengentas de divinis & na­turalibus quae­ſtiones propoſui, ad quas in pub­lico doctiſſimorum hominum conſeſſu eſſem responſurus. John Pici Mirand. Apol. Tom. 1. operum p. 76. upon 900. The o­logicall and Philoſophicall queſtions at Rome, and in any of them to be ready to be reſpondent to any opponent: wherein though ſome commended his ſtudiouſneſſe of good arts, yet did his offer givegObtrectatorum turba multiplex aſſurrexit. Nonnulli me audacem dicere & temerarium, qui hac aetate, quartum ſcilicet & vigeſimum nondum natus annum, de altiſſimis Philoſophiae locis, de emnibus Chriſtianae Theologiae myſteriis, &c. Ibid. p. 1677. great offence unto many that accounted him an audacious and temerarious young man, who (not yet fully of age of 24 yeares) durſt propoſe a diſputation, of the profound points of Philoſophy, of the ſublime myſteries of Chriſtian Theology, of unknown arts and diſciplines in ſo famous a City, and ſo ample and numerous an aſſembly of learned men. And much more op­poſition14 and reproch he met withall: for his (at leaſt) ſuppo­ſed preſumption,hhCum nuper Romam veniſ­ſem, pedes ſū­mi pontificis Innocentii ectavi, cui ab innocentia vi­tae nomen, me­ritiſſimè de more oſcula­turus. Ibid. princip. Alpo. p. 76. which gave them juſt occaſion to ſu­ſpect, (though he were ſo ſuperſtitionſly humble as to come to Rome to kiſſe the Popes foot) and ſeemingly ſo religiouſly lowly as to ſhew himſelf ſeriouſly affected with the fore-cited ſaying of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 4.7.iiQuid habe­mus quod no­ſtrum ſit? non­ne cuncta quae in nobis ſunt Dei ſunt? quid ergo oporter ſe extollere mag­ni facere oſten­tare? glorie­tur qui gloria­tur in Domino &c. John Pic. Mirand. Tom. 2. de ſtudio di­vinae & huma­nae Philoſoph. l. 2. c. 6. p. 25. what have we (ſaith he) that is ours? are not all things that are in us the things of God? why then ſhould any one extoll, magnifie, or boast himſelf of any thing he hath? but let him that glorieth, glory in the Lord, ſince all good things are his and by his infinite grace and goodneſſe beſtow­ed upon us. Whether he thought ſeriouſly of this, when he made his challenge forementioned, we cannot determine, nor will we conjecture: But there are ſome, of whoſe for­wardneſſe to diſpute we can have no good conceit, as of Fe­lix the Manichean Heretick, who provoked Auguſtine (the re­nowned Biſhop of Hippo) to publick diſpute; whereto he was ſo unprepared, that it was a doubt to him that publiſhed the report of what paſſed betwixt them,kNeſcio quid potiſſimum admirer, Feliciſne impudentiam qui provocavit ad publicam diſputationem, ad quam adeo non fuit inſtructus ut vix aſinus potuit inſulſius argumen­tari; an populi tolerantiam; an Auguſtini ſtomachum invincibilem; qui tamindoctis inep­tiis tam diu tanta lenitate reſponderit: ſic in Praefat. ad lect or de art. cum Felici Manichae. poſt finem lib. 2. Tom. 6. p. 651. operum Auguſtin. whether were more to be admired, the impudence of Felix braying, rather then disputing; or the patience of the people, hearing his abſurd arguings without tumult; or the invincible ſtomach of Auguſtine, who with ſuch lenity continued ſo long to anſwer his unlearned follies. Of this o­ver-eager affection to diſſenting altercation, we find many examples among the Romaniſts, as Iohn Eccius (whomlJohannes Eckius vel Eccius catholicae ſidei adverſus Lutherum ac reliquos haereticos propugnatur inſignis Antipoſſevinus Appa. Sacri. Tom. 1. p. 871. Poſſevine commends for a notable Champion againſt Luther and other Hereticks, who when a diſputation was appointed at Ratiſhon, ann. 1541. betwixt Iulius Pilugius, Iohannes Gropperus, and himſelf for the popiſh party, and Philip Melancthon, Martin Bucer, and Iohn Piſtorius, for the Proteſtants,mIlli verecundèſe excuſant, & ut alii magis idonei conſtituantur pe­tunt omnes praeter Eccium, is enim paratü ſe diccbat & inſtructū. Sleidan. Cōment. l. 13. p. 279. all but Eccius, modeſtly deſired to be excuſed, and intreated that others more fit might be appointed to diſcuſſe the points in difference betwixt them;15 but he ſaid he was ready prepared for the purpoſe, yet it was to little purpoſe; for though he were ſo hot upon the matter, God took him off with another heart fornnAliquanto poſt in febrim inci­dit, it a quidem ut intereſſe non poſſet. Sleid. Ibid. 14. princip. lib. p. 281. he ſeized on him with a feaver, and thereby ſerved him with a prohibition, that he could not be preſent; of him it is to be noted that though he were ſo forward to diſpute, he wrote one diſcourſe againſt diſputing with Hereticks, andooSee Poſſe­vinus ubi ſuprà. another that Hereticks were to be burned: which ſheweth that he would not have their minds enligthned with inſtruction, but their bodies inflamed to deſtru­ction by burning faggots reared round about them. Iohn Co­chlens his mate in malignity to Proteſtant truths, was ſo vehe­mently and confidently bent, (by diſputation) to oppoſe ſuch as profeſſed themſelves Proteſtants, that he offered himſelf to diſpute with any Lutheran, upon perill to loſe his life if he failed in his proofs; but his confidence is the leſſe, to be regarded, be­cauſe as he perſecuted truth;ppEccius com­mentar. rerum inde geſtarum ann. 1531. p. 271. under the name of Hereſie ſo he publiſhed Hereſy under the title of truth for he was the firſt that ſet forth the workes of Iohannes MaxentinsqqCochleus o­pera Johannis Maxentii ſub. nomine ortho­doxi patris pri­mus edidit. Tom. 4. Bibli­oth Patr. p. 433. as an or­thodox father whom ſome of his own ſide, (more learned then himſelf, as Margarinus Dola Bigne) have ſince dicovered to be anrrOpera Max­entii cautiſſi­ legenda, nec illis fiden­dum, cùm late­at Eutychianae haereſeos vene­num. Ib. &c. p. 445. Entychian Heretick, as the reader may ſee in the fourth tome of Bibliotheca Patrum: the Eutychian hereſie acknow­ledged but one nature in Chriſt, and that was the divine, andsAlphonſus de caſtro adverſus haereſes lib. 4. titulo de Chriſti haereſ. 4 col. 4278. held that our bodies at the reſurrection ſhall be more ſubtill then the wind, ſo that they ſhall neither be ſeen nor felt. After Eccius and Co­chleus was ſet up the ſect of the Ieſuits, which ſome place up­on the yeartIbid. l. 13. titulo de reſurrectione, haereſ. 2. col. 906. 1530. ſome inuBuccalzer. Jud. Chronol. p. 534. 1540. Among them none ever ſet a bolder face upon ſo bad a cauſe as thewLudov. Lu­cius Hiſt. Jeſuit, c. 1. p. 1. Ieſuit Edmund Cam­pian did; who made a thraſonicall challenge to diſpute with the Ʋniverſities of England, reducing the reaſons of his diſ­pute to ten heads, which Poſſevine (a fiery-ſpirited Ieſuit, for the good liking he hath of them, and fearing (in time) ſo ſmall a book as they made might be loſt, incorporated into hisSee Poſſevinus Bibliotheca ſelect. part. p. 309. ad 324. firſt part of his Bibliotheca Selecta. In theſe reaſons of his offer, he16 ſeemes cum ratione inſanire, to be mad with ſuch a miſtake a­theirs who think they have reaſon, when they kill Chriſts ſer­vants, to think they do him ſervice, John 16.2.

His confident expreſſions in his cauſe, argue either a ſtrange impoſture of a deluding ſpirit, or a braſen impudence of a bragging Jeſuit,xxSi hoc praeſti­tero, coelos eſſe. Sanctoseſſe, fidem eſſe, Chriſtum eſſe, cauſam obti­nui. Camp. in Epiſt. Acade­micis Oxonii florentibus. Ib. 320. If I do make good (ſaith he) that there is an Heaven, that there be Saints, that there is faith, that there is a Ghriſt; I have won the victory. yyPatres ſi quando licebit accedere, con­fectum eſt prae­lium; tam ſunt noſtri quàm Gregorius ipſe 13. filiorum Eccleſiae pater amantiſſimusIbid. ratione 5. p. 315.If we come to try our differences by the fathers, the war is at an end; they are as certainly ours as Pope Gregorie the thirteenth, a moſt loving Father of the Chil­dren of the Church: But when he was diſputed within the To­wer, ann. 1581. he that was ſo loud and vigorous in his chal­lenge, was ſo low and feeble in performance, that it gave them cauſe to conceive who had well obſerved them both,zzSee Alex. Nowell and Will: Dayes Preface before the diſpute printed ann. 1583. that the book was none of his which was publiſhed in his name; how­ſoever he that reads his challenge, and the true relations of the diſpute or conference fore-mentioned, will find that his rhetorick was more plauſible in the one, then his logick po­werfull in the other; ſo that we can neither ſay (according to Sampſons riddle) out of the ſtrong came ſweetneſſe, Judges 14.14. Nor out of the ſweetneſſe came ſtrength. For it was his weakneſſe of judgement to take ſo great a burden on him as he was nor able to bear, and the weakneſſe of his cauſe and judg­ment both, which ſuffered it to ſink when he took it into pro­tection, and undertook to ſupport it againſt ſo many vigorous Aſſailants as he provoked to oppoſe it; when one learned man was able to turn that counterfeit Divine into a meer Thraſo, his reaſons into bubbles, his threats into trifles and vapours of vaniſhing ſmoke;Campianum ita fregit Whi­takerus, ut omnes ſanae mentis facile viderent ementitum Theologum in verum Thraſonem, rationes in ampullas, deniqueomnes minas in meras nugas & fumum leviſſimum evanuiſſe. Melch. Adamus in vita Whitakeri part. poſter. p. 169. as Melchior Adamus very fit­ly ſetteth forth his folly and foile.

There have been ſome women who have ſo much forgotten the frailty and modeſty of their ſex, as to make chattings to learned men for diſputation in matters of Religion; of this there is a memorable ſtory, but how true it is I cannot tell, be­cauſe17 cauſe I have it but upon the report ofaaParſons in the Preface to his report of 10. diſp. p. 29, 30. added to the third part of his treatiſe intitu­led the 3 con­verſions of England. a Ieſuit, (who howſoe­ver moſt highly honoured by his ſect, is for his manybbSee the glo­rious Elogium of Robert Par­ſons in Capi­tall Letters in. Philip. Ala­gamb. Bibliothe­ca. Societat. Je­ſu p. 414. falſities, and ſome forgeries, of little credit among the Proteſtants,) which is this: In the year of Chriſt 403. Acertain wilfull wo­man, of the City of Antioch, named Julia, infected with the abo­minable hereſie of the Manichees, and fervent therein, came to the City of Gaza, whereof Saint Porphyrius, an holy learned man, was Biſhop; and beginning there to pervert Chriſtians, and be­ing reprehended for it by the Biſhop, ſhe challenged him to an o­pen diſputation, which the good man admitted, ſhe behaved her ſelf ſo inſolently as was intolerable: what the iſſue and effect was, is to be obſerved under another title. Another example I had occa­ſion to note in a letter to a worthy Lady, of a woman for her learning above moſt of her ſort, or ſex, her name was Arga­la, a Proteſtant, of whomccGretzer. Tom. 1. defenſ. Bellarm. lib. 2. c. 51. Col. 833, 834. Gretzer the Jeſuit reports that ſhe ſent a challenge to Eckius, (of whom we have ſpoken before) to diſpute with him, who not ſo patient as the Biſhop fore­mentioned, ſent her a diſtaſſe and spindle, to put her upon employ­ment more proper to her Sex. It had been more to her com­mendation, if ſhe had been as learned as the noble Virgin An­na Maria a Schur-man, to have been as modeſt and ſilent as ſhe was, who needed theddImmortale virginū decus, cùm nihil na­tura tibi dene­gaverit, ac om­nia detulerit eruditio, vide­ris tamen late­re velle, & co­mitem rectè factorum glo­riam repudiare: totnè linguas calles, ut ſile­as? totnè diſ­ciplinis gene­roſum iſtum in­ſtruxiſti animū, ut unitas agiter inglorius artes? 2. Sic Joh. Beverovicius Epiſt. ad illam p. 5. illi­us libri edit. 1641. Lugd. Batav. urgent perſwaſions of learned men, to let her learning be known for the benefit of others: and thougheQuod tibi nunc offertur ſpecimen faeliciſſimi ingenii virginis quae patem non habet, exiguum eſt ſi cum iis quae effecta habet & parata, compa­retur: ſed pro ea qua eſt modeſtia, &c. Ibid. p. 7. ſhe have written much, worthy to be commit­ted to publick view; yet ſuch was her modeſty, that not without much importunity, that little which is printed was extorted from her, which had not been obtained of her but that ſome had anticipated her conſent by precedent publication. I can find but few ſuch examples to commend to the imitation of women; and I need not bring more of ſuch extravagants from Chriſtian moderation, and female modeſty, as ſome fore-noted; ſince our age hath afforded many hereticall viragoes, who have dared to ſet upon Preachers in their pulpits on the Sab­bath day, in full Congregations; taking upon them not onely to be opponents of their Doctrine, but to be judges both of it18 and them, which offices they uſurped with a kind of papall preſumption, as if they were guided in what they did by an in­fallible ſpirit; and ſome have not been aſhamed to put others to bluſh for their impudence, and theſe of both Sexes, as well Evites, as Adamites: but that which at preſent we have in pur­ſuit and proſecution, is that intemperate humour of diſpu­ting, of which a wiſe and learned States-man ſaid,ffPruritus diſ­putandi eſt ſcabies Eccle­ſiae. Sir Henr. Wootton, War­den of Eaton college. the itch of diſpute is the ſcab of the Church: Which he might happily take from Ludovicus Vives, who hath an expreſſion of neare affini­ty, or rather conſangunity unto it; As thoſeggQuemadmo­dum qui pruri­tus tic•…latione acti, nimium ſcabentes ſan­guinem elici­unt, & dolor ſuccedit in lo­cum ſuavitatis; ita iſtidum ni­mium ſcalpunt veritatem, &c. Ludovic. Vives de cauſis cor­ruptar. artium l. 3. p. 127. (ſaith he) who are acted by the tickling of itch, do ſcratch too much and draw bloud, (whence there ſuccedeth ſoreneſſe for ſweetneſſe, pain for pleaſure:) So thoſe who ſcratch the truth too much by diſputation, wound it, and leave it in a condition of a neceſſity for ſome other meanes to cure and heale it.

Queſt. But are not the Proteſtants much commended by ahhSir Edw. Sands Europae Speculum. p. 85. judicious writer, for their offers of diſputation to their adver­ſaries in all place? For their iterated and importuned ſuits for publick audience and judgement? and is it not obſerved by him, for matter of advantage to the Proteſtant proceedings, as a thing which greatly aſſured the multitude of their ſoundneſſe, whom they ſaw ſo confident in abiding the hazard of publick triall? they standing in like termes as a ſubſtantiall juſt man, and a fa­cing ſhifter; whereof the ones credit is greateſt there where he is beſt known, and the others where he is least.

Anſ. Whereto I anſwer, that when Luther and others made revolt from the Romiſh Religion, the Romaniſts were moſt groſſe in doctrine, moſt looſe in practiſe, (eſpecially the Prelates and the ruling Clergy) moſt injurious to the right and liberty of the people (both as men and as Chriſtians;) for which they were juſtly made odious to them which had a true reliſh of Religion or morall honeſty. All theſe particulars I could undeniably demonſtrate if there were need, and this place were fit for ſuch a proof as the charge will require: Therefore

It was the prudence of the Proteſtants, not their intempe­rance or diſtemper, to deſire diſputation in thoſe times; be­cauſe then as they had more juſt cauſe to oppoſe the Roma­niſts, ſo had the Romaniſts leſſe ability to defend themſelves:19 for, as that worthy Gentleman welliiIbid. obſerveth, they were not ſo cunning then in the queſtions, nor ſo ready in their evaſions, as now they are grown: ſo that (as he ſaith) the effect of their offers, (whether received or refuſed) was in moſt places ſuch, as to draw with them an immediate alteration in Religion; and he medneth it by turning frrm the Popiſh to that which is Proteſtant. This doubt cleared, I ſhall returne to my diſcourſe of the diſpu­ting diſcaſe, whereto as ſome have it thing cares, (as the Apo­ſtle ſaith, 2 Tim. 4.3. ) ſo ſome have itching tongues; ſome itch­ing fingers and pens. Such are thoſe diſputing Papiſts, who are commonly called School-men; of whom (though Peter Lombard Biſhop of Paris, was the founder, father or maſter, (and well he deſerved that title, ſaithkkCollegit ſen­tentias ſacrorū theologorum, & magiſter ſen­tentiarum & ſa­crorum theolo­gorum dici me­ruit. Bellarm. de Eccleſ. Script. ad ann. 1145. p. 322. Bellarmine;) yet his Scholars and followers, (eſpecially Aquinas, and Scotus, with their Scholaſtick Commentators) have multiplied the number of needleſſe queſtions, far beyond the limits of ſober, reaſo­nable and religious inquiries. I will ſet down ſome of them, and thoſe ſo many as may ſerve to make good my charge; (not omitting others as occaſion ſhall induce me to mention them, though not of their tribe.) Beginning with Aquinas,llAquinas prim­part. vol. prim. q. 6. ar. 1. and taking more out of him then any other Queſtioniſt, becauſe he is a Canonized Saint of the Romiſh Church, and in their Schooles and Bookes commonly ſtyled the Angelicall Doctor.

His queſtions are, 1. Of God. 2. Of. Chriſt. 3. Of Angels. 4. Of Men.

llAquinas prim­part. vol. prim. q. 6. ar. 1.1. Whether it be agreeable to God to be good.

mmIb. q. 14 ar. 2.2. Whether God underſtand himſelf.

nnIb. q. 19. ar. 1.3. Whether there be a will in God.

ooIb. q. 21. ar. 1.4. Whether there be juſtice in God.

ppIb. q. 25. ar. 1.5. Whether there be power in God.

qqApud Ludov. Viv. in Aug. l. 18. c. 16.6. Whether he can give power to a Crastore to create.

rrAquinas ad. 2d. vol. prim. par. q. 44. ar 4.7. Whether it were convenient that God ſhould require to be beloved with all the heart.

ss2d. 2d. vo 2. q. 90. ar. 1.8. Whether God be to be praiſed with the mouth:

2. Of Christ, he hath ſome vain queſtions, but becauſe o­ther Papiſts have far worſe, I will mention theirs rather then his. Firſt, it is a very vain and fond queſtion.ttOrat. Dan. Cromeri. op­poſ. Bellarmino. p. 170, 171. which Cromerus noteth, viz: Whether Chriſt were of the order of the Domini­cans,20 or Franciſcans. But they are worſe then vain, for they are vile; worſe then fond, for they are mad: which Eraſmus hath collected, I will ſet them down in his Language; for they are moſt of them ſo profane and blaſphemous, that I am loth to deli­ver them in any other: and therefore I will ſet them down as I find them in that Author, ſo much the more worthy of credit, becauſe by three Popes,uuLeo Pontifex maximus dile­cto filio. Eraſ­mo. Eraſ. Epiſt. l. 1. p. 49. idem l. 2. p. 72. Upon which the note of the index expurg. is, pa­ternis viſceri­bus pius pater nutantem ovi­culam blandis encomiis allicere conatur. p. 237. col. 2. Leo the tenth,wwEpiſt. l. 23. p. 864. 865. Adrian the ſixth, andxPaulus P. 3. Deſid. Eraſm. Rot. Sacr. Theolog. profeſſ. diſect. fil. &c. Epiſt. lib. 27. p. 1095. Paul the third, he was acknowledged for a Son of thoſe Ghoſtly Fathers by their Letters written to him, two by Pope Leo, by Pope Adrian two, and by Pope Paul one; in all which he is not only kindly accepted, but highly commended by them. In hisyy1 Num ſint plures in Chriſto filiationes. 2 Num poſſibilis ſit propoſitio, Deus odit filium. 3 Num Deus potuerit ſuppoſitare mulierem. 4 Num Diabolum. 5 Num allnum. 6 Num Cucurbitam. 7 Num ſilicem. This is ſomewhat like that of Ludovic. Vives, An Deus poſſet ſuppoſitare hanc pennā qua ſcribo. Plut. in com. in libro. Aug. de c. 13.8 Tum quemadmodum ſi cucurbita eſſet concio­natura. 9 Num editura miracula. 10 Num figenda cruci. Hac apud Eraſm. Moriae Encom. Quid ſit ſuppoſitum & ſuppoſitare in divinis, vid. Suarez. disp. Tom. 1. p. 150. diſp. 11. Moriae Encomium he rehearſeth ten, whereof the firſt is fooliſh, the reſt blaſphemous, as the learned Reader may ſee, though but in a marginall obſervation: for I had rather ſet them down on the leſt hand, covered with a Latine mask, then to place them bare-faced, for the readieſt view of an ordinary Reader.

To ſuch queſtions may pertinently be applied the cenſure of Nazianzen, they are ſo wretchedly affectedzzGreg. Naz. vol. 1. orat. 33. p. 431. (ſaith he) that they make it their delight to make trifling diſputes of divine matters, and are as preſumptuous many times in reſolving of curious queſtions, as raſh in propoſing them to the triall of diſ­putation;aaIdem. Orat. 35. p. 561. whoſe precipitation and temerity he thinketh very fit to be bridled and reſtrained.

3. Of Angels, Aquinas inquiresbbAquin. prim. part. vol. 2. q. 56. ar. 1. whether they know them­ſelves.

2. Whether their knowledge be matutine and veſpertine; which he takes occaſion to diſpute from the expreſſion ofccAug. Super Geneſ. ad lit. l. 2. c. 8. An­guſtine.

3. ddAquin. prim. part. vol. 3. 2. q. 60. ar. 3.Whether Angels love themſelves with a naturall or an elective dilection.

4. eeIb. q. 63. ar. 9.Whether as many remained in the ſtate of grace as fell from it.

21

5. ffIb. q. 117. ar. 2.Whether men can teach Angels.

1. Of man, whether the rib of which Eve, was made were one of Adams neceſſary ribs, or one ſuperfluous: this is the queſtion ofggPeter. ſuper Geneſin. c. 2. q. 6. p. 159. Pererius a learned Jeſuit, which by his own con­feſſion is by one of his own centured for a ſuperfluous que­ſtions

hhIbid. Tom. 1. lib. 4. q. 2. p. 166 Quomodo ſtatu innocentiae fae­minae generati poſſunt &c. Ib. q. 3. c. 2. An in ſtatu in­nocentiae inte­gritas faeminei genitali s commixtione viri, &c. Ib. q. 4. col. 1.2. Whether in the ſtate of innocency, the number of males and females ſhould have been equall.

To theſe two we may adde two more out of the ſame Jeſuit; but becauſe they are not ſo modeſt as the former, I had rather make a marginall note of them, in the Latine words of the Au­thor, then expreſſe any part of them in my Engliſh text: yet be would ſeem very baſhfull to the Popiſh Biſhop Abulenſis To­ſtatus, who diſcuſſeth ſo obſcene a queſtion about circum­ciſion, that he cannot for ſhame make mention of it, and there­fore thinketh it beſt to paſſe it over in ſilence; and ſo do I: there are many of that ſort in Sanchez his great bellied book de matimonio, which maketh good the words ofkkDe delectati­one praeputia­torum, &c. Ita pudenda eſt il­lius oratio & diſputatio, ut praeſter ca ſilentio praeteriri. Perer. in Geneſ. 17. diſp. 2. p. 596. v. 1. Cū coelibatum profiteantur, nimise muliebrium rerum peritos teſtantur. Pareus in Gen. 19. v. 33. Pareus, of the badneſſe of ſuch as pretending to live chaſtly ſingle ſhew themſelves by their diſcourſes too well acquainted with wo­mens matters.

Of mans death and reſurrection there are moved many diſ­putes, as idle and audacious as the reſt: there is one Bartholo­mew Sybilla hath written a whole book of ſtrange queſtions, among whichllBarth. Sybil­la ſpecul. pere­grin quaeſt. de­cad. 1. c. 2. q. 7. p. 5455. one of the paſſage of the ſoul out of the body, whether it go on the right hand or the left; whether forward or backward.

Of the reſurrection Aquinas hath many vaine queries; asmmAquin. ſup­plem. tertiae part. q. 81. ar. 3 c. whether all ſhall ariſe in the male Sex, andnnIb. q. 8. ar. 2. whether the haires and nailes ſhall riſe up with the body; with many others of like ſort, which I paſſe over becauſe I would leave roome for others of another kind, which manifeſt the Papiſts to be the greateſt doters upon impertinent and unprofitable queſtions, and the boldeſt determiners of doubtfull things, that are. This appeareth not onely by their diſputes and queſtions, ſuch as I22 have obſerved already; but by their reſolution of many doubts (as they pretend) by divine revelation; which may beſt be delivered by way of queſtion and anſwer, (as in form of a Catechiſme) divers of which are ſet down in two ſuch Papiſts books, as uſually ſupplied matter to their Prieſts for Sermons to the people; of which the one is the big book of the lives of the Saints, called by themſelves the Golden Legend: though by by thoſe who have read it with indifferency, the lying legend, made by Jacobus de Voragine, as he is ordinarily termed (but asccPoſſe. Appa­rat. Sacr. vol. 1. p. 794. Poſſevine corrects the name, Iacob de Varagine, Archbiſhop of Geneva) his book was printed at Venice, ann. 1575. The other book is a book of ſelected Sermons, printed by Iames Kavi­nell, for the uſe of ſimple Prieſts who want cunning to preach: So in the title of the book, the time and place of the firſt publication of it I find not noted. This premiſed, I will be­gin the queſtions out of their former book of lies with the au­thor of lies the Devil.

Quest. 1. What is the proper likeneſſe of the Devil? ddLeg. aur. fol. 244. p. 1. col. 2.He is like an Ethiopian, more black then thunder, his face ſharpe, his beard long, his haires hanging unto his feet, his eyes flaming as hot as fire, caſting out ſparkles of fire, and out of his mouth come flames of ſulphur; his hands bound with chaines of fire behind his back.

Queſt. 2. When the Devil had tempted Adam and Eve, or Adam by Eve, to eat the forbidden fruit, what penance did they undergoe, (after they had yielded to the Devil) and were expelled out of Paradiſe?

eeThebook of ſe­lected Sermons printed by James Kavinell Dominic. Sep. mageſ. fol. 8. p. 1. col. 2.Anſ. For many yeares before their death they ſtood either of them in water a night up to the chin, (far from one another) till their fleſh was as green as graſſe.

But we muſt make a long leap into the new Teſtament, elſe we ſhall ſtay too long, and make our queſtions too many.

Queſt. 3. Why was Peter bidden to put up his ſword when he drew it in our Saviours defence?

ffMenot, Serm. fol. 47. col. 4.Becauſe he had nor cunning enough to uſe it; for he cut off Malchus his care when he ſhould have cut off his head.

Queſt. 4. How many thornes were in the Crown that was ſet upon the head of Chriſt?

ggApol. for He­rodot. l. 1. c. 35. p. 274. out of Bonaventure, Lyra & May­lard.Juſt a thouſand.

23

Queſt. 5. How many wounds had the body of our Saviour in the whole?

Anſ. hhpa. 14. of the office of the Virgin, printed at Paris. ann. 1524.Five thouſand four hundred and ſixty.

Queſt. 6. What were the theeves names that were cruicified with Chriſt?

Anſ. iiLeg. aur. fol. 16. p. 1. col. 2.Dyſmas the name of him that was ſaved, and Geſmas the name of him that was damned.

Queſt. 7. Why was Dyſmas ſaved rather then Geſmas?

Anſ. kkA Franciſcan of Bourdeaux Apol. for Hero­dot. l. 1. c. 33. p. 260.Becauſe he would not ſuffer his fellowes to rob Chriſt when he fled into Egypt.

Queſt. 8. How know you that S. Thomas Becket (whoſe ſalva­tion hath beenllSee Speeds Chron. l. 9. c. 6. p. 510. col. 2. 43. called in queſtion, even among our own ca. becauſe of his contumacy againſt his King) was ſaved?

Anſ. AmmLeg. aur. fol. 180. p. 2. col. 1. young man died and raiſed by miracle, ſaid, there was in heaven a void ſeat; and asking whoſe it was, anſwer was made, that it was kept for a great Biſhop of England named Thomas of Canturbury. nnSymbolum dedit, coenavit. Ter. Andr. Act. 1. Sen. 1. Durand. Ratio­nal. l. 4. c. 25. fol. 133. p. 1. Eraſm. Cate­chiſm. Symboli Apoſtolor. &c. ſet out with pictures to eve­ry Article at the beginning of the book.

Queſt. 9. How was the Creed called the Apoſtles Creed compoſed by the twelve Apoſtles?

Anſ. As a ſhot made up by gueſts each paying his ſhare, for

  • Article 1 was laid down by Saint 1 Peter.
  • Article 2 was laid down by Saint 2 Andrew.
  • Article 3 was laid down by Saint 3 Iames the Son of Zebede.
  • Article 4 was laid down by Saint 4 Iohn.
  • Article 5 was laid down by Saint 5 Philip.
  • Article 6 was laid down by Saint 6 Bartholemew.
  • Article 7 was laid down by Saint 7 Thomas.
  • Article 8 was laid down by Saint 8 Matthew.
  • Article 9 was laid down by Saint 9 Iames the ſon of Alpheus.
  • Article 10 was laid down by Saint 10 Simon.
  • Article 11 was laid down by Saint 11 Thaddeus.
  • Article 12 was laid down by Saint 12 Matthias.

Queſt. 10. What ſhall be the condition of the world the laſt fifteen dayes before the day of Judgement?

Anſ. ppSee Leg. aur. on the advent of our Lord. fol. 2. p. 2. col. 2. and compare it with the ſe­lected Sermons out of it pub­liſhed by James Kavinell, fol. 2. p. 2. col. 2. &c. In whoſe book the dayes are thus numbred and the number thus preciſely reckoned as precedent immediately before the day of judgement.The firſt of the fifteen dayes the water ſhall riſe upon24 the Sea, and it ſhall be higher then any hill by forty cubites.

2. The ſecond day the Sea ſhall fall down ſo low, that un­neath the earth may be ſeen.

3. The third day the great fiſhes, as Whales and others, ſhall appear above the water, and ſhall cry unto Heaven, and God onely ſhall underſtand their cry.

4. The fourth day the Sea and waters ſhall brenne.

5. The fifth day all trees and herbes ſhall ſweat bloud, and all manner of fowles ſhall come together, and neither eat nor drink for dread of the doome that is coming.

6. The ſixth day all great buildings, Caſtles, Towers, Steeples and Houſes, ſhall fall down, and brenne till the Sun riſe again.

7. The ſeventh day all Stones and Rocks ſhall beat together, that each ſhall break other, with an horrible noiſe, the which ſhall be heard into Heaven.

8. The eight day the Earth ſhall quake, ſo that there may no man ſtand thereon but ſhall fall down.

9. The ninth day the people ſhall go out of their dens, and go as they were mindleſſe, and none ſpeak to other.

10. The tenth day Hills and Earth ſhall be made even and plain.

11. The eleventh day all graves and tombes ſhall open, and the bodies ſhall ſtand upon them.

12. The twelfth day Stars ſhall fall from Heaven, and ſhall ſpread out raies of fire; on this day, it is ſaid, that all the beaſts ſhall come to the field howling, and ſhall not eat nor drink.

13. The thirteenth day all living ſhall die, to the end that they ſhall riſe with the dead bodies.

14. The fourteenth day the Heaven and the Earth ſhall brenne.

15. The fifteenth day ſhall be a new Heaven and a new Earth, and all things and all dead men ſhall ariſe.

I had not been ſo ſerious, nor inſiſted ſo long in diſcoverie of the fooliſh and unlearned queſtions (ſuch as the Apoſtle re­proveth, 2 Tim. 2.23. ) of the Papiſts, both polemicall School­men, and Legendary Preachers, and their ridiculous vanity in reſolving many curious and ſuperfluous doubts by25 revelation; but that I have many of that deceived ſort in my pariſh, (though I thank God ſome fewer then I found when I came thither, and I hope to make them yet ſewer, if God pleaſe to give me time to effect what I have in deſire, and deſign, which is, to manifeſt, that the ruling Romaniſts are the ſubtilleſt Maſters of the ſubtilleſt Myſtery of iniquity in the world; and their ſe­duced diſciples, (eſpecially the illiterate) the moſt fooliſh peo­ple in the world, from whom they keep the Scripture, and ſo keep them in blind ignorance, that (like hooded hawks) they may carry them whither they pleaſe; for which wrong they would ſeem to make them ſome recompence by ſetting images before them, which are commonly called Lay-mens books, though they can reach them none other leſſon then that a Chriſti­an ſhould not learn, viz. falſhood, vanity and errours, Jer. 10.14, 15. and by pretended revelations, which are either meer forge­ries of their audacious Doctors, or meer fallacies of the great deceiver mentioned by St. Iohn, Rev. 12.9. who makes them do­ters about queſtions and ſtrife of words, 1 Tim. 6.4. and puffeth them up to an affectation of forbidden knowledge, as he did our firſt parents, Gen. 3. and their diſciples receivers of any fooliſh fancie which they ſuggeſt unto them.)

But my principall aim in what I have hitherto ſaid in this Chapter, is, to curb thoſe men of corrupt minds, who are too prone to perverſe disputings, ſuch as the Apoſtle reproveth, 1 Tim. 6.5. and ſince (by their diſputings) queſtioning and re­ſolving, aiming to be wiſe above that is written, 1 Cor. 4.6. they have bewrayed their egregious folly to the world, we may tauntingly take up the queſtion of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 1.20. and put it to them, where is the wiſe? where is the Scribe? where is the disputer of the world? hath not God made fooliſh the wiſdome of this world? he hath doubteſſe: and we may take the great School-man and Queſtioniſt Aquinas for inſtance, whom thoughqqBellarm. de Eccleſ. Script. ad ann. 165. p. 347. Bellarmine commend for his holinleſſe and wiſdome, was neither ſo holy nor ſo wiſe as he ſhould have been: not ſo holy, 1. Becauſe he was ſo bold as to put to diſpute ſo many un­doubted principles of divinity as we have noted.

Secondly, becauſe he lacked humility, without which there is no true holineſſe, which he might have learned of his Maſter26 PeterrrModeratior eſt Petrus Lombardus, qui ſententias alie­nas recitans non temerè de ſuo addit, aut ſi quid, timidè proponit. Eraſm. in Epiſt. ad Caron. delectum Epiſc. Panorum. Epiſt. l. 28. p. 1161. Lombard, of whom Eraſmus righly obſerveth, that re­siting the opinions or ſentences of others, he did not raſhly adde any thing of his own; and when he added any thing, it was rather with fear then confidence.

Nor was he ſo wife as he ſhould have been: for as much as he wanted in humility, ſo much he had in pride, and as much pride, ſo much folly; for pride and folly, as humility and wiſe­dome, are ſorted together by the wife man, Prov. 14. v. 3. c. 11. v. 2. And though he looked for credit by his bold inquiries and concluſions, and had it of thoſe of his own ſide; yet ſuch as were ſound in the faith, and not partiall in affection, diſcove­red and diſdained his pride, and ſo it was followed with ſhame, as Solomon obſerveth, Prov. 11.2. whereof we have a memora­ble paſſage betwixt Eraſmus, and Dr. Collet, the godly and famous Deane of Pauls, in K. H. the 8, his daies; to whom when Eraſmus had much commended Aquinas, to heare his judgement of him, and he gave him none anſwer, he propoſed and more vehemently preſſed the praiſe of him the ſecond time: to whichssTanquam af­flatus Spiritu quodam, quid tu, inquit, mihi praedicas iſtum, qui niſi ha­buiſſet multum arrogantiae, non tanta te­meritate, tan­toque ſuperci­lio definiſſet omnia; & niſi habuiſſet ali­quid Spiritus mundani, non ita totam Chriſti doctri­nam ſua pro­phanâ Philo­ſophiâ conta­minaſſet. Eraſm. Epiſt. ad Jodoc. Jonae l. 15. p. 486. Collet, as if he had been inſpired with an anſwer from God, preſently replyed, What meane you ſo to praiſe that man to me, who if be had not had much arrogancy in him, would not with ſuch temerity and ſuperciliouſneſſe have defined all things? and if he had not had ſomewhat of the Spirit of the world, he would not have ſo defiled the Doctrine of Chriſt with his profane Philoſophy. How worthy a man Dr. Colles was (for learning and Godlineſſe) they that deſire to know, may find a ſhort ſtory of him in Mr. Fox histFox Martyr. vol. 2. p. 54. 55. ſecond volume of Acts and Monuments, and in the fore-cited Epiſtle of Eraſmus, he was ſo much a Pa­piſt (being levened with the corrupt Doctrine of the age where­in he lived) that King Henry the 8. after a Sermon preached by him in his preſence, and long communication with him, by oc­caſion thereof diſmiſſed him with theſe words, Let every one have his Doctor as he liketh, this ſhall be my Doctor: and yet ſo much a Proteſtant both in his preaching and practiſe, that asuBiſh. Lat. in his 7th. Serm, on the Lor. Prayer. ſol. 174. p. 2. Bi­ſhop27 Latimer ſald, he ſhould have been burned in K. H. the Eight his reigne, if God had not inclined the Kings heart to the contrary.

CHAP. III. That diſputations on matters of Religion are warranta­ble by Scripture and reaſon, and not onely lawfull, but ſometimes alſo expedient and profitable.

THough for the undoubted duties of morality, the Apoſtle preſcribeth preſent and prompt obedience, without mur­murings or deſputings, and that in all things of that kind, Phil. 2.14. yet for matter of faith and conſcience he requireth no ſuch facility either in affection, or in fact; but giveth leave and leiſure, or rather adviſe to Chriſtians, to bring both the Spirits and ſpeeches of men to triall, 1 Iohn 4.1. 1 Theſ. 5.21. and when he requireth of Chriſtian believers that they be ready alwaies to give an anſwer to every one that asketh a reaſon of the hope that is in them, 1 Pet. 3.15. he meaneth (doubtleſſe) that if any cavil at that anſwer or reaſon, he that giveth it ſhould make anſwer for it to defend it; and if this be required of a Chriſtian, much more of a Miniſter, who ſhould be able by ſound Doctrine both to exhort and convince the gaianſayers, Tit. 9.11. as it is ſaid of Apollos, that he mightily convinced the Iewes, and that publickly, ſhewing by the Scripture that Ieſus was Chriſt: which may ſtop the mouths of ſome adverſaries; as they ſay offfMr. Trapp on Tit. 1.11. Frogs, that if a light be hanged over the lake wherein they lie, will leave crocking: though ſome be ſo contumacious againſt the truth, ſo malicious againſt them who prevalently plead for it, that they will rather ſtop their mouthes (by violence) who have overcome them by the power of truth, as they did by Stephen when they ſtoned him, Act. 7. v. 54, 57, 59. then con­feſſe themſelves convinced or ſatisfied with the cleareſt evi­dence produced in the plaineſt cauſe that can be debated: but28 this is not the fault of diſputation it ſelf, but the perverſneſſe of the diſputant, who will diſputare or diſcedere (for according to that ſenſe we may make the Etymology of the word) though he have not one wiſe word to ſay for the folly and falſity of his opinion; we muſt, as ſaith that ancient Doctor and Confeſſour Hlarius,ggNon tam evi­tanda quàm•…­futanda [Dog­mata] non tam refugere debe­mus quàm re­fellere, &c. Hilaran Pſal. l. 2. p. 186. not flee from the erroneous doctrines of men, aafraid to encounter them; but muſt refell and conquer them by diſputations as Picus Mirandula ſaith, It is thehhDiſputatio cribrum verita­tis. Picus Mi­randula. Tom. 2. operum. 3. Epiſt. p. 853. ſieve or ſearce to ſever the fine flower of truth from the courſe branne of errour: which is not more for the honour of truth, then for the benefit of thoſe that do embrace it; for ſo diſtinguiſhed, it is not onely more amiable to the eye, and more pleaſant to the taſte, but more nutritive, as breeding better and puter nouriſhment to the ſoul. And as it is a deed and duty of charity for ſuch as have the charge of ſoules to feed them with the fineſt of the whest, and with the honey out of the rock to ſatisfie them, which is the proviſion that God is willing to bellow upon his obedient people, Pſalm 81. v. laſt: So is it alſo a charitable act and office, not to ſuffer them to be choked with the bran of er­rour and Hereſie, which many are too forward to obtrude upon ignorant and inconſiderate people; yea hereticall ſeducement is more dangerous then ſo, for the Apoſtle ſaith of ſuch as Hymeneus and Philetus, who were hereticks, that their ſpeech willat like a Canker, or Gangrene, 2 Tim. 2.17. which is eaſie to catch, and hard to cure: what their Hereſie in patticular was, is not diſcovered in the Scriptures, nor in any ancient Author near the times wherein they lived: of Philetus there is mention but once, that is in the place fore-cited; of Hymeneus twice, viz. both here and 1 Tim. 1. laſt, where he hath another malignant mate named with him, viz. Alexander, whom Saint Paul delivered to Satan, that they might learne not to blaſ­pheme: by which we learn, it was a blaſphemous Doctrine, and probably it was (asiiTheodoret on the 1 Tim. 1. laſt. Theodoret conceiveth) well known to Timothy; and we know that a Canker and Gangrene are very dangerous diſeaſes, and thoſe who are Spirituall Phyſicians, ought in charity to do their beſt to keep their flocks from ſuch infective and deſtructive miſchiefs. And if diſputation be a meanes, as being wiſely ordered it may prove, it may be expe­dient29 that way to curb and diſcourage Hereticks from corrup­ting of them: which may ſerve alſo for an antidote to preſerve their ears from the venome and poyſon of hereticall tongues; who, if they be let alone, without oppoſition will go on to ſub­vert whole houſes, as the Apoſtle ſaith, Tit. 1.11. And as for prevention of the ſpreading of Hereſie, ſo for recovery of ſuch as are already enſnared by it, and for reconciliation of ſuch as diſſent in judgement and affection, diſputations may be requi­ſite and uſeull; to which purpoſekkPollid. in vi­ta Aug c. 3. Honorius the Emperour compelled the Donatiſts to give meeting to the Catholiks, and ſometimes they have proved very advantageous to the truth: Thus it was in the beginning of the reformation of Religion, when the errours of Popery were in their nature more groſſe, more rude in their dreſſe, and their Prieſts nothing ſo politick as ſince they have been; the ProteſtantsllSir Edw. Sands Europae ſpeculum. p. 85. loffired disputations in all places the effects whereof, as were touched before whether received or refuſed, drew with them an immediate alteration of Religion: for if they were received, the better cauſe prevailed; if they were not, they who refuſed gave cauſe of ſuſpicion, that their Coine howſoever it were gilded, was indeed but Copper, which could not (as pure gold) endure to be tried by the touch ſtone; and the alteration of Religion then was ſuch asmmDiſputatio Bernenſis ſune finem habuit apud illos & aliquot vicinos, miſſae, arae & ſtatuae erant abolitae. Surius com­mentar. ann. 1527. p. 208. Surius com­plaineth of; Maſſes, Altars and images were aboliſhed.

And as diſputation, if ordered as it ought to be, may produce good effects, ſo the want of that, eſpecially the refuſall of it, when it is importunately called for by the adverſaries, may give them occaſion of inſulting; andnnTaciturnitas corumquireſi­ſtere deberent perverrenti•…us fidei veritatē, eſ­ſet errorisconfir­matio. Epiſt. Sy­nod. in Concil. Baſil. Tom. 8. p. 230. col. 2. the ſilence of ſuch as ſhould conteſt with them may be turned to the confirmation of errour, as is obſerved in the Synodall Epiſtles of the Councill of Baſil, which was likely to have been the ill effect of yours and Doctor Grewes refuſall to encounter with M. Knowles and Mr. Kiffin, if you had not been as reſolute to reſiſt them as they were pre­ſumptuous to provoke you to diſpute.

Laſtly, as conferences and debates may effect much ſpirituall good, if managed as they ſhould be, (and I ſtill underſtand them with that limitation) ſo may they be meanes of30 corporall good alſo; for where no diſputations are allowed of, there the matters of difference are carried with more fraud, force and violence; as we have touched before upon the Spa­niſh Inquiſition, and may obſerve further, out of the**Neque in diſ­putando apud tales pertinaci animoſitate centendentes & annitentes propriae pru­dentiae, ullus unquam erit finis; &c. Cochleus Hiſt. lib. 1. c. 21. Chap. 2. let. n. Epiſtle of John Gerſon to the Archbiſhop of Prague, wherein he would not have him to put the matters in difference with the Bohemian Proteſtants to diſputation, but adviſeth him to take another courſe, which is to cut down Hereſie by the Temporall Sword; he meanes the Hereticks: for (ſaith he) by disputing with ſuch as with pertinacious animoſity contend, leaning to their own pru­dence, there will never be an end, &c.

This agreeeth well with that of Eccius, who (as we noted be­fore) wrote one Treatiſe againſt diſputation with Hereticks, another for burning of them; which Bellarmine would have taken not for a perſecution of them, but for an act of favour and benefit to them, as we ſhall have occaſion more particular­ly to note in the fifth chap. Much more charitable and Chri­ſtian was theppCan. 66. Sy­nod Lond. ann. 1604. Canon of our Engliſh Biſhops for conference with Recuſants; and had they been as carefull to ordain onely good and able Miniſters as they ſhould have been, we might have found better fruits of their government then we have done. But the effects and iſſues of colloquies, conferences and diſputations, I reſerve for another chapter, viz. the fifth now cited.

31

CHAP. IV. An Hiſtoricall collection of diſputations of ſeverall ſorts, principally concerning differences in matter of Religion. In two ſections.1. Containing examples from the Apoſtles to Luther. , and • 2. Of examples from Luther to the preſent age.  

OF diſputations, ſome are managed without the ſtrife tongues, Pſal. 31.10. as the dialogues or colloquies of Plato, Cicero, Lucian, among the Heathens; and ſome of A­thanaſius, Hierome, Auguſtines tracts among the ancient Fa­thers; Galatinus, Eraſmus, Peter Martyr, and other, of later times. To this head may be referred the polemicall diſcourſes, that are read in Schooles, or publiſhed in print, or both, of dif­ferences in Religion; as Bellarmine calleth his Volumes of controverſies, Diſputations, though there appeared none oppo­ſite to diſpute againſt him. And ſome, though agitated with ſtrife of tongues, are not like the diviſions of Reuben, great thoughts of heart, Judg. 5.15. Such are the diſputes now in print, whereof Gilbert Voetius profeſſour at Ʋtriect was mo­derator, betwixt a viſible and vocall Opponentand Reſpondent, contradicting each other, yet without any hearty oppoſition; both parties, though adverſe in words, yet of one mind and one judgement: and ſo it is in the ordinary Academicall diſputa­tions of Oxford and Cambridge, where the controverſie is ra­ther formall then ſerious, except when the Reſpondent taketh upon him the defence of ſome Paradox, as one Mr. Ph. of Mort. Colledge did in my time, who propoſed this for an Act­queſtion,aaAn liceat pro puncto ho­noris aliquem interficere. Whether for a point of honour it were lawfull for any one to kill another: wherein he held the affirmative, which how it32 came to pſſe that it was permitted I know not; ſure I am that divers learned and conſcientious men were diſpleaſed with it: or when the Opponent is of a contrary judgement to the Re­ſpondent, as Mr. Tombs to Doctor Savage, when at the Act in Oxford he diſputed againſt the Baptiſm of Infants. This was very contrary to manner of the old Academicks of the Plato's inſtitution, ſo called from thebbAcademici ex locivoca­bulo nomen habuerunt. Cicer. Acad. quaeſt l. 1. edit. 2. p. 34. 12. place where the Philoſophers met to diſpute, I mean for peremptorineſſe of opinion; who were ſo far from maintaining paradoxall poſitions or conclu­ſions, that they would poſitively conclude, or determine no­thing at all, holding asccId habebant Academici de­crtum, nihil poſſe percipi. Cic. Ib. edit. 1. l. 2. p. 49. Num. 29. a decree, that nothing by diſpute could be diſcovered; wherein ſome were ſo abſurd (asddChius Metro­dorus in initio libri qui eſt de natura, nego, inquit, ſcire nos ſciamusne ali­quid, an nihil ſciamus. Ib. p. 17 Num. 67. Chius Metrodo­rus) that they denyed a man could know whether he knew any thing or nothing; and therefore though they diſputed much, it waseeProprium eſt Academiae ju­dicium ſuum nullum inter­ponere, ſed quod in quam­que ſententiam diei poſſit ex­promere, ſed judicium audi­entibus relinquere integrum & liberum. Cicer. de divin. l. 2. p. 305. proper to their diſcipline to bring in reaſons on both ſides, to find out what is moſt likely, and ſo without paſſing any ſentence to leave the judgement wholly to the hearers. Thef〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Diog. Laert. in vita Pyrthonis lib. 9. p. 675. Scepticks in Dio­genes Laertius, were of near affinity to them, who were ſo cal­led, becauſe they were ever ſeeking, and never found what they ſought for: there were Sceptick women in the Apoſtles time, 2 Tim. c. 3. v. 7. Our Seekers are ſuch in their Religion as thoſe were in Philoſophy, but ſo much the worſe, as it is to be igno­rant or unreſolved of truth in Religion, eſpecially in ſuch points as are fundamentall, then of points philoſophicall. But the Aca­demicall diſputations of Chriſtians are as well concluſive as diſcurſive, although it were better that ſome Academies were rather Scepticall then definitive, viz. ſuch as were founded of purpoſe for oppoſition to the truth in the name of Hereſie, as that ofgDua cenſis Academia in Relgio ſuperioribus annis à Philip. 2. Rege Catholico inſtituta, cum per Germ. & Galliam perniciociſſimas haereſes increbreſcere videret, &c. Jacob. Meddendorp. de Academ l. 3. p. 524. Dowey by Philip the ſecond King of Spain. The uſe of Diſputations, colloquies and conferences rightly inſtituted, and according to the inſtitutions obſerved, ſerves not onely to clear problematicall,hNon inutilitèr exercentur ingenia, ſi adhibeatur diſceptatio mode­tata, & abſit error opinantium ſe ſcire quod neſciunt. Auguſtin. Eachirid. ad Laurent. c. 59. Tom. 3. part. 1. p. 218. and to aſſure and confirme fundamentall33 doctrines, but are profitable, as Austine obſerveth, for the exerciſe of wit, if the diſceptation be moderate, and without the er­rour of ſuch as think they know that they know not.

Though I mention theſe Academicall diſputations, as in ho­nour to learning, to which we ſhould take all fair occaſions to give laudable teſtimony; eſpecially ſince ſome in theſe times with a Turkiſh Antipathy to learning, cry down Academicall Colledges, Books, Studies, exerciſes, and would Levell thoſe faire Fabricks, as Babylonian buildings, even with the ground, unleſſe they might take them in poſſeſſion for themſelves, (which once the Levellers attempted;) yet I make them rather a Proem then a part of mine hiſtoricall Catalogue, which ſhall conſiſt of the perſonall debates of ſuch as are far from the pro­feſt Union of the Apoſtle, in ſpeaking the ſame thing, and being perfectly joyned together in one mind and one judgement, 1 Cor. 1.10. whoſe minds are contrary, and their tongues contradictory, and their pens alſo; when they take them up like pikes to proſe­cute the war by writing, which by verbal diſputation they began.

The diſpute betwixt Michael and the Archngel, with the Devil about the body of Moſes, mentioned in the 9. of Jude,iiJacob. Salia­nus Anno Mundi 2583. 329. ante Chri­ſti nat. anno 1440. p. 310. col. 1. for antiquity hath the precedency of all others; and though ſome take it in a figurative ſenſe, the moſt and beſt expoſitors underſtand it literally: yet there is great difference what was the difference betwixt them; Jude ſaith the ſubject of it, was the body of Moſes; and about that, that chief controverſie was whe­ther Moſes body ſhould be ſo buried, that no man ſhould know of his Sepulchre, as it is ſaid, Deut. 34.6. Why his buriall-place ſhould be concealed, the reaſon which hath the beſt ground, and moſt concurrent conſent is, becauſe he was ſo worthy and renowned a man, ſo much honoured by God and man while he lived, that, conſidering the people of Iſraels proneneſſe to Idolatry, his body was like to be made an Idol by them: wherein he gainſaid the Angel, as if he were zealous for the honour of Moſes, though he might intend his diſhonour by contemptuous abuſe of it by his enemies. But is it not ſaid that he died on Mount Nebo, (which is the top of Piſgah, whence he ſaw the Land of Canaan, Deut. 34. v. 1, 2, 3, 4.) and was buried in a valley in the Land of Moab, over againſt Beth­ptor,34 Deut. 34.6. Yes, but for all that though he were carried by the Divine power or Miniſtry of the Angell into the val­ley and there buried, yet no man ſaw in what part of the val­ley his body was interred: But did not the Devil know the place? if ſo, he might diſcover it, and act according to the e­vil ends before rehearſed; ſo that the anſwer may be, that if God pleaſed he could keep it ſecret from the Devil, if the De­vil knew it, he could make him keep it ſecret; if he were never ſo deſirous to reveal it: and herein askkCum Diabo­lus revelare & prodere vellet Judaeis ad ido­lolatriā pronis, impeditus eſt & rohibitus ad Archangelo Michael. Adri­chon. Delph. Theatr. terrae Sanctae in tribu Ruben. p. 126. col. 1.3. I conceive conſiſted the conteſtation betwixt Michael and the Devil, that when the Devil would have diſcovered the Sepulchre of Moſes to the Jewes, prone to Idolatry, he was prohibited and hindred by the Angell, There is, ſaithInter ange­los bonos & malos perpetua diſputatio eſt, &c. Luth. Icom. claſſ. c. 36. p. 100. Luther, a perpetuall diſpute betwixt the good and the bad Angels; the good Angels propoſe and pro­mote good things; the bad Angels bad: the good anſwer all ob­jections, and reprehend them for their Counſells and courſes. Ano­ther notable diſputation with the Devil we read of, Mat. 4. and Luke 4.llAnn. Chriſti. 31. Anno. Chriſti. 34. called by ſome a Monomachie or ſingle combate be­twixt our Saviour and him, wherein the queſtion was, whether Chriſt was the Son of God or no; the Devil was opponent, and Chriſt the Reſpondent, as you may read in the two precedent Chapters. By theſe two examples we are taught two things, for our inſtruction and imitation, from the former, not to give railing ſpeeches in diſputes, Jude, 9. By the other we are di­rected with what weapon to wage our war, (viz.) the word of God. But my hiſtoricall narrative I ſhall make up of meer hu­mane examples; beginning firſt with the Protomartyr Stephen, in the Hiſtory of the Acts of the Apoſtles,mmBucolzer. Ind. Chron. p. 135. which containeth the memorable perſons and paſſages of the Church, for the ſpace of twenty ſix yeares, beginning at the aſcenſion of Chriſt, and ending at his 59. yeare, and the 4. of Nero, there, viz. Act. c. 6. v. 9. We read that there aroſe certain of the Synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and them of Ci­licia and of Aſia disputing with Stephen; thennThema diſ­putationis eſt, An Jeſus Na­zarenus ſit ve­rus Meſſias, &c. Stephanus af­firmat ita eſſe, neganti proferuntur ar­gumenta in medium contra ſententiam Stephani, verū is ea ita re­fringit, &c. Centari, l. 2. c. 12. p. 648. Centur. Mag­detur genſes, ſet forth this diſputation in a formall manner, ſet­ting down, firſt the Theme or argument of their diſputation, or queſtion, viz. Whether Jeſus Chriſt be the Meſſias foretold by, the Prophets and whether all things foretold of the Meſſias by the35 Prophets, may be applied to and were fulfilled in him, and the works recorded of him. Stephen affirmeth, they deny; they pro­poſe their arguments, Stephen refuteth them &c.

Paul, as himſelf confeſſeth to God, Acts 22.20. When the bloud of the Martyr Stephen was ſhed, he was ſtanding by and conſenting to his death, and kept the raiment of them that flew him; and they ſlew him by ſtoning him, Acts 7.59. but God, by that hard-hearted cruelty, and Stephens Patience, Cha­rity, and Piety, and the divine power concurring together, was occaſionall and cauſall for his converſion, and after that he be­came a zealous Champion for Chriſt and his truth, and diſpu­ted for it and him as Stephen did, for he ſpake boldly in the name of the Lord Jeſus, and diſputed againſt the Grecians, Acts 9.29. in the Synagogue of the Iewes, and with devout perſons, and in the Market daily with them that met him, Acts 17.17. and c. 19. he disputed daily in the School of one Tyrannus, Acts 19.9. Whe­ther this Tyrannus were a Prince or ſome potent man of rule and authority who founded the School, and allowed it for the exerciſe of Scholaſticall diſputations, or a particular perſon, the Maſter of the School, whoſe name was Tyrannus; and whe­ther a teacher of Philoſophy or Rhetorick, and whether con­verted by Paul, he were willing he ſhould make uſe of his School for propagation of the Goſpel among his Scholars and others who might have recourſe unto him there (the affirmative whereof are the moſt probable opinions of the moſt approved expoſitions) I dare not determine; but there is no doubt but he was ſo enabled by humane learning and divine aſſiſtance to manage a controverſie in the cauſe of Chriſt, againſt all gain­ſayers, and ſo zealous to advance it unto victory, that he pre­termitted no opportunity of pleading for it, either by preach­ing or polemicall conteſtation. The ſtory of Paul for ſuch particulars isooPauli curri­culum〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉delineabimus, cumcerta an­norum diſtin­ctione deſtitu­amur. Bucolz. chron. p. 136. not noted with ſuch a certain diſtinction of years in the Scripture, that we can as punctually ſay when, as of what, with whom, and where he diſputed, but that we may know that all his diſputations were acted betwixt the 35. yeare of Chriſt (Ibid. when Stephen was ſtoned, and Paul was converted) and the 68. yeareppHelvic. chro­nol. p. 86. when he was martyred.

After the Apoſtles time, as hereſies begun to ſpring faſter36 and ſpread further, ſo there were no doubt many conflicts be­twixt Chriſtians and Hereticks, beſides the controverſies with Jewes and Pagans, eſpecially ſuch as pretended to learning, whe­ther as Philoſophers, Rhetoricians, and Politicians: And when we read the refutation of their errours in Iuſtin Martyr, Ire­naeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius and others, we cannot but con­ceive in probality of reaſon, that they had many perſonall diſ­putes with their adverſaries, though we find them not upon record, or if we did we would not put our ſelves or the Reader to ſuch paines to rehearſe them all, conceiving it ſufficient to ſelect a competent number of ſuch as are of ſpeciall note; As that ofAnn. Chriſti 150. Juſtin. Martyr. Dial. cum Tryphone. à p. 217. ad 371. Graecolat. Pariſ. 1636. Iuſtine Martyr with Tripho a Iew, held at Epheſus; wherein Iuſtine maintaineth againſt the Iew, that the Chriſtian Religion doth not leane to fables, but reſteth on demonſtration full of the Spirit of God; and that Chriſtians, though they ob­ſerve not circumciſion, nor the Iewiſh holy-dayes, and other ceremonies, they are not therefore tranſgreſſors of the Cove­nant of God: the reſt and the greateſt part of the diſpute is ſpent in defending the true Doctrine of the perſon and offices of Chriſt, againſt all Iewiſh cavills, and concluded with a re­proofe of their groſſe ingratitude to God, in worſhiping the gol­den Calfe; after innumerable bleſſings and miraculous mercies ſhewed to them,Ann. 206. their great impiety in offering their Sons and Daughters unto Devils, their killing of Chriſt, perſecution of Chriſtians, and practiſe of polygamie; for all which he exhor­teth the Jewes to hearty repentance. Minutius Felix,qqMinutius Fe­lix inſignis cauſidicus. Hierom. Tom. 1. p. 229. cauſidic. Rom in. fori. Ib. Tom. 3. p. 322. a fa­mous Lawyer of the Court of Rome, as Hierome calleth him,rrThis Dia­logue is in the 9. Tom. Bibli­oth. Patr. à. col. 1. ad. 22. publiſhed a diſputation dialogue wiſe betwixt Octavius a Chri­ſtian, and Cecilius an Heathen; Octavius ſhewes the abſurdity, cruelty, and impiety of the Heathen Religion, and juſtifies the Chriſtian againſt the opinion of Cecilius, & the Scandals put up­on Chriſtians by the Heathens,ssQuaſi. Chri­ſtiani monſtra colerent, infan­tes convivia in­certa vorarent. Ib. Minut. Fe­lix. col. 16. as if they did worſhip Monſters, devour infants, and mingled inceſt with their banquets: But this dialogue (though taken by ſome learned men for an Hiſto­ricall truth) ſeemes rather to be a perſonated diſpute made by Minutius himſelf, then a reall concertation betwixt any perſons ſo named, wherein, as Lactantius conceiveth, that lear­ned Lawyer declares how fit an aſſertor of the truth he37ttDeclarat quā idoneus aſſer­tor veritatis eſ­ſe potuiſſet ſi ſe totum ad id ſtudium con­tuliſſer La­ctan. Iuſtit. l. 5. c. 2. p. 401. might have been if he had wholly addicted himſelf to the endeavour thereof. uuAnno. 226. Hierom Apo­log. adverſus Ruffinum Tom. 2. operum p. 224.Hierome makes a report of a Dialogue or diſpute be­twixt Origen and Candidus a defender of the Valentinian Here ſie, wherein (ſaith he) me thinks I ſee two blind, or darkwAnd abatae qui nocte vel qui cluſis ocalis pugnant. Eraſin. chil. ad. p. 624 col. 2. and p. 685. col. 1. An­dabata's fighting together: the Valentinians ſay he Son is of the ſubſtance of his Father, but withall aſſerts that he was ſent from his Father with a Celeſtiall body (for that was the errour ofxAlphonſus de caſtro adverſ. hereſ. lib. 4. col. 266. Anno. 226. Valentinus;) on the contrary part Origen according to Arius and Eunomus, denies his begetting or generation from the Fa­ther, leſt he ſhould divide the Father into parts.

Archelaus Biſhop of Meſopotamia wrote a booke in the Sy­riack-Tongue, of his diſputations againſt a Manichaean Here­tick going out of Perſia, which was tranſlated into the Greek, and was in many mens hands inyyHieronymus Tom. 1. operum p. 294. Anno 277. Hieromes time, but now is loſt, aszzBaron. An­nal. Tom. 2. An. 277. parag. 14. Baronius thinks; this Archelaus flouriſhed neer the Empe­rour Probus his time, who ſucceeded Aurelianus and Tacitus: But the errours of the Manichees remain ſtill uponaaAug. de haereſ. ad quod vult Deum Haeſee. p. 46. Tom. 6. p. 24. record, they are many and groſſe, as Auſtine andbbEpiphan. 1.2. Tom. 2. p. 149. precip. p. 155. Ann. 315. Epiphanius report them; the principall was that of their two contrary principles, the one good, the other bad, both eternall; and ſo was moſt like­ly to make one part of the diſpute.

There was at the City of Nice a notable diſputationccNiceph. Calliſt. Eccl. Hiſt. l. 8. c. 15. p. 379. be­twixt one who was a skilfull Logician and learned Philoſopher, by nation a Greek, who confiding in his art and eloquence in­fulted over the orthodox Chriſtians, but was undertaken and taken down by Spiridian an old man, who confuted and conver­ted him: about that time was Arius diſputed with and confu­ted by the Council of Nice: there is queſtion made whether Arius were at the Council or no, which is diſcuſſed byddScultetus me­dul. Patrum. p. 1. p. 467. Anno. 349. Scul­tetus, and the affirmative proved by him againſt them that deny it.

Athanaſius had a ſolemn diſpute with Arius at Laodicea, which is ſet downeeTom. 2. operum Graecolat. à col. 66. ad. 394. as a Trialogue, or a tripartite diſcourſe be­twixt three perſons, Athanaſius, Arius and Probus a Gentile judge, delegated by the Emperour Conſtantine to over-ſe and38 order that affaire, and to make report of the paſſages of it to himſelf, which was like to be done with diſadvantage to the ca­villing Heretick, who not able to anſwer Athanaſius prooſs, charged him with magicall Arts, and there withall faſcinating the ſenſes of his judges.

There was a publick diſputation appointed by Valentinian the Emperour betwixt Ambroſe Biſhop of Millain, and Aux­entius an Arrian Heretick, who preſuming of the favour of Iuſtina Auguſta an Arrian, challenged the Biſhop to diſpute, who refuſed the challenge, and rendred his reaſons thereof to the Emperour;Anno. 386. which you may readffIn Ambroſe his 32. Epiſt. to Valentin. lib. 2. Tom. 3. p. 121. &c. and in Baron. An­nal. Tom 4. ad ann. Chriſti 386. paragraph. 16, & 17. Tom. 4 col. 56. in the works of Ambroſe. ggChryſoſt. in Epiſt. prior. in Corinth. cap. 1. Homil. 3. Tom. 4. col. 352.Chryſoſtome maketh mention of a ridiculous diſpute in his conceit betwixt a Chriſtian and an Heathen, the queſtion was whether Paul or Plato were more learned; wherein though the Heathen preferred his Plato, the Chriſtian his Paul, yet for humane learning the Chriſtian (as Chryſoſtom ſuppoſed) ſhould have given therein the better to Plato, that ſo the prevailing by Paul might appear to be not by humane wiſdome, but by di­vine grace.

The EmperourhhPoſſid. in vi­ta. Aug. c. 3. Tom. 1. Geſt. Prim. Collat. p. 2. nu. 1 Ann. 412. Honorius deſirous to bring the Donatiſts to concord with the Catholicks, compelled them to a collation or conference; or which purpoſe he ſent Marcellus a Tribune and Notary, to take order for their meeting accordingly; he was, it ſeemeth, Notary for the Emperour, for the Catholick party had two others, Ianuarius and Vitalis, the Donatiſts two of their own alſo,Anno. 410. Victor and Creſcentius: of the collation at Carthage, all the the paſſages, the moſt ſolemn part of it in three daies make up a juſt Volume of above 400. pages in 8uo publiſhed by Papirus Maſſonus a Civilian of Paris Anno. 1588.

Auguſtine, when he was converted from Manicheiſme to true Chriſtianity, became a vigorous and zealous Champion for the truth; and both by his tongue and pen had many diſputa­tions with many ſorts of Hereticks, as Arrians, Donatiſts, Ma­nichees, Originiſts, Polagians, Priſcillians; it is hard to ſort them in the ſeverall yeares, with exact accommodation to the yeares of Chriſt, but the moſt of them were acted from the 43. yeare of his age to theiiBucolzer. In­dex. chronol. ad ann. 430. p. 231. 77. when he died: we ſhall have occaſion to make obſervation of ſome of them in the next Chapter.

39

Arnobius the youngerkkBell. de eccl. Script. p. 208. wrote a book of this title,Ann. 460. The con­flicts of the Catholicks with Serapion, concerning the Trinity, and the Unity of two ſubſtances in the ſingle perſon of Chriſt; which it is like, had their paſſage in alternate turnes of ob­jections and anſwers, after the manner of diſputation, not much before this time.

llTom. 3. conc. p. 853. col. 1. Severiani à Se­vero exorti vi­num non bi­bunt. quod fa­buloſa vanitate de Satana & terra germi­naſſe aſſerant vitem: carnis reſurrectionē cum veteri Te­ſtamento reſ­puunt. Aug. Tom 6. de hae­reſ. Quod vult Doumhaereſ. 24. Tom. 6. p. 16. Anno. 645.There was a collation or diſputation held at Conſtantinople,Anno 531. in the time of Iuſtinian the younger, betwixt the Catholicks and Hereticks called Sverians; whoſe hereſie was, that by a ſabu­lous vanity they condemned the uſe of wine, as ſuppoſing the Devil begat the vine of the Earth: they denyed alſo the reſur­rection of the body, and all the old Teſtament.

In themmConcil. Tom. 4. p. 624. fourth tome of Councells, we find a diſputation ſet down betwixt Pyrrbus Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and Maxi­mus a learned Monks; the Patriarch was a Monothelite, holding but one will in Chriſt; whereas Chriſt being God and man, and ſo having two natures, he muſt needs have two wills, one as he is God, another as he is man, for elſe he were not perfect God and perfect man: this two-fold will we find Luk. 22.42. Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me, never­theleſſe not my will but thine be done: for this Maximus plea­ded againſt Pyrrbus as a Monothelite, who held that he had but one will, and that was divine; I ſpeak the more diſtinctly of this hereſie, becauſe it is known to few what it is, to fewer how it is to be confuted.

About the obſervation of Eaſter there hath been much con­troverſie in the Church many yeares ago; as in the yeare 196. the Chriſtians in AſiaooSee Euſeb. Eccleſ. Hiſt. lib. 5. c. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. Sethus Calviſ. chron. p. 485. c. 2. out of a tradition of Iohn the Evange­liſt kept the Feaſt of Eaſter, upon the 14. day of the month, as Exod. 12.6, 7. What day of the week ſoever it was, other Chriſti­ans in Europe, kept it onely that day when our Saviour roſe from the dead, and this as by a tradition from Saint Peter, for which TenetppEuſebius ubi ſuprà. Ann. 546. Victer the Biſhop of Rome was ſo hot, that he would have excommunicated the Biſhops of Aſia for the contra­ry opinion and practiſe, but that divers Biſhops, eſpecially Irenae­us, wrote unto him, that for a difference of ceremonies and rites, the concord of doctrine and faith ſhould not be broken.

There was another great diſſention atqqSethus Calviſ, p. 577. col. 2. Conſtantinople de ter­mino40 Paſch. anno 546. But the moſt famous diſpute about that matter was that whichrrBde Eccleſ. Hiſt. gentis Anglor. lib. 3. c. 25. Ann. 664. Bede reporteth, which was carried on moſt of all by Coleman (whom ſome account an Iriſhman, and ſome a Scotchman; whereof the cauſe may be, for thatssPhilip. Ferra­rius. p. 177. c. 1. ſome call Ireland Scotland) and Wilfred, a Presbyter of Mercia, whoſe King Oſwi was preſent at the diſputation, and gave his vote for the obſervation of Eaſter according to S. Peters or­der,ttEgo vobis di­co, quia hic o­ſtiarius eſt ille cui ego contra­dicere nolo, ſed in quantum novi & valeo hujus cupio in omnibus obe­dire ſtatutis, ne forrè me advenienre ad fores regni coelorum non ſit qui reſerat, averſo illo quiclaves tenere probatur. Bdae Eccleſiaſt. Hiſt. lib. 3. c. 25. p. 139. upon goodly reaſon, Becauſe Peter (ſaith he) is the keeper of Heaven gates, whom I will by no meanes contradict, but as much as in me lieth I will obey all his ſtatutes, leſt when I come to the gates of Heaven there be none to let me in, he being averſe who keepes the Keyes.

2. Section of examples from Luther to the preſent age.

From the time laſt noted Antichriſt grew up apace to­wards his achme; and when he attained to a predominancie of power, the courſe was according to the Council of Gerſon, cited in the precedent Chapter, rather to out down Hereticks (as the Papiſts call all that are not Popiſhywith the Sword, then to diſpute with them by word, untill Luther (ſtirred up by the Indulgences of Pope Leo the 10. and the covetous and blaſphe­mous ſelling of them by Tecelius) oppoſed rather the corrupt practiſe of the Court of Rome, then the erroneous Religion of the Church of Rome. Anno. 158.

His firſt diſputation againſt it was at Heidelberg in the Cloiſter of theuuMelchior. A­dam. in vita Luther. p. 108. Augustinian Monks, which is now called the Colledge of wiſdome, and it was of juſtification by Faith: at that Diſputation Bucer was preſent, who with a quick hand wrote what Luther delivered, which he communicated to Beatus Rhenanus with much praiſe and applauſe on Luthers part. Ann. 1519.

That yearwwBucolz. In­dex chron. p. 476. there was a diſputation at Lipſia betwixt Luther and Eccius about the primacy of the Pope, Penance, Purgatory, and Indulgences; and betwixt Corolſtadius and Eccius about free will.

41

After ſeveral Treaties in ſeveral places in Germany,Anno 1530. ſeven Ca­tholicks and ſeven Proteſtants were choſen to confer together, to finde out a means of compoſition; who not being able to agree, the number was reſtrained to three apiece: and though ſome few ſmall Points of Doctrine, and other petty things (be­longing to ſome Rites) were agreed on, yet in concluſion it was perceived, that the conference could produce no concord at all, becauſe neither party was willing to grant to the other any thing of importance. Anno 1541.

ThexxSleyd. Com. lib. 13. p. 279. Emperour Charles V. propoſed a Colloquie to the Proteſtant Princes, to be held atyyIbid. l. 14. p. 281. Ratisbone, betwixt Julius Pelagius, John Eccius, John Gropperus, choſen for the Papiſts; Philip Melancthon, Martin Bucer, and John Piſtorius for the Proteſtants.

To them was delivered a Book by Granvell, given to Caeſar, as he ſaid, by ſome good man; the Heads whereof he would have them to conſider, which were, Of the Creation of Man, and his Integrity of Nature before the Fall, Of Free-will, Of the cauſe of Sin, Of Original Sin, Of Justification of a ſinner, Of the Church, Signs, and Authority thereof, Of the Word, Repen­tance, Of the Authority of the Church in Interpretation of Scri­pture, Of Abſolution, Matrimony, Of the Sacraments, Of Or­der, Of Images, The Maſs, Adminiſtration of Sacraments, Of Diſcipline of the Church, Miniſters and People. Eccius erat impatiens atquemoroſus, nam & librum fa­ſtidiebat, & collegas minime probabat qui egerant rem diligenter, & reconciliarunt multa, nec illa quidem levia doctrinae capita. Ibid. In this Colloquie Eccius ſhewed himſelf impatient and froward, and diſdained the Book, and diſliked his Collegues: yet they handled the matter diligently, and reconciled ſome Heads of Doctrine of no ſmall moment. Anno 1546.

bbSleyd. Com. l. 16. p. 353, 354.Caeſar renewed the Diſputation at Ratisbone, but with other Speakers on both ſides, except onely Martin Bucer. The Points to be argued on were the ſame, the ſame Preſidents and Nota­ries choſen, two on each ſide; and withall, an Oath was requi­red, That nothing ſhould be revealed of the matters in confe­rence, before it were imparted to Caeſar, and States of the Em­pire: which the Proteſtant Diſputants could not agree unto, becauſe their Princes had required of them from time to time42 to write unto them, how things proceeded in the Colloquie: Whereupon is was ſoon after broken up.

About that time,

ccMelch. Ada­mus in vita Fred. Mycon. à p. 171, ad 175. Fredericus Myconius diſputed with John Tecelius the Popes Factor for ſale of Pardons; betwixt whom, the Queſtion was not about the lawfulneſs or validity of them, but abut the ſel­ling of them: For Myconius would have had a Pardon a free­coſt, but Tecelius would not allow him one upon ſuch eaſie terms, and ſo he was without one. Anno 1549.

ddFox Martyr, vol. 2. p. 756. col. 2. Mr. Fox ſaid, he had ſo many Diſputations in his hands, and ſome of them ſo long, as all together would make a Vo­lume. And he ſetteth down at large Peter Martyrs Syllogiſti­cal Diſputation againſt Tranſubſtantiation at OxfordeeIbid. à p. 760 to 778. ; and three Diſputations held at Cambridge the ſame year: That of Peter Martyr is noted by Sleydan alſo, and well approved of.

There was a Conference at Poiſy in France, in the time of Charles IX.Anno 1560. French Hiſt. p. 737. ſee of this diſput. Peter Mart. 54 Epiſt. which is to Bul­linger, p. 154. Counc. of Tren. Anno 1561. which began the 9 of Septemb. and was finiſhed about the 5 of Novemb. ffBucolz. Chron. p. 602. Bucolzerus ſaith, it was betwixt the Cardinal of Lorain and Theodore Beza. ggThe Hiſt. of the Counc. of Tr. l. 5. p. 453, 454.The Hiſtory of the Councel of Trent ſaith, there was with him Peter Martyr, and that theſe two were the chief. ThehhFrench Hiſt. of Serres, p. 737 French Hiſtory, beſides them, nameth Auguſtine, Marlorat, Francis of S. Paul, Ray­mond, and John Viril, with others, to the numbar of 12 Mi­niſters, and 22 Deputies of the Proteſtant Churches, who of­fered a Petition to the King at his firſt entry, To examine the Confeſſion of their Faith; That the King would be Preſident with his Councel; That the Clergy being parties, ſhould not take upon them the Authority of Judges; That all Controver­ſies might be determined by the Word of God; That two Se­cretaries choſen on either ſide might examine the Diſputations that were daily written; and that they ſhould not be received, but ſigned by either part. Theſe conditions, with little diffe­rence, are ſet down both in the French Hiſtory, and the Hiſtory of the Councel of Trent, in the places ſore-noted: but in other particulars their Obſervations are different, though not diſſen­tient. iiHiſt. of the Counc. of Trent ib. l. 5. p. 451.The Cardinal of Lorain likewiſe deſired the Kings pre­ſence in the publick Aſſembly, that it might be more frequent and adorned, to make oſtentation of his worth, promiſing himſelf a43 certain victory. Many of the Divines would have perſwaded the Queen not to ſuffer the King to be preſent, that thoſe tender years might not be envenomed by peſtiferous Doctrine: but he was pre­ſent, and in a ſhort speech, as he was inſtructed, made an Exhor­tation to correct the things that were amiſs, deſiring they ſhould not depart till all differences were compoſed. Before they entred into open Conference, the Cardinal of Lorain would treat privately with Beza, before the Queen, Mother; and having heard him, eſpecially upon the Lord, Supper,kkSerres French Hiſt. ubi ante. I am greatly contented, ſaid he, with it; and hope aſſuredly, that the iſſue of this Conference will be happy, proceeding with mildneſs and reaſon.

Afterwards, when the Cardinals of Lorain and Turnon ende­voured to make delays in the Conference, the Queen bade Beza begin; who having praid upon his knees, and deprecated the imputations of turbulency and ſedition from himſelf and his party, he declared in what they did agree with the Church of Rome, and in what they did diſſent, touching Faith, Good Works, Authority of Councels, of Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline, Obedience to Magiſtrates, of the Sacraments, and entring in­to the matter of the Euchariſt: But he ſpake with ſuch heat, (ſaithllHiſt. of the Councel of Trent, 1.5. p. 452. the Author of the Trent Hiſtory) as gave little ſatisfa­ction to them of his own party, but provoked the Prelates to high diſdain and indignation. The Congregation being aſſem­bled again, the Cardinal of Lorain made a long Oration, con­cluding, when any particular Church is in an errour, recourſe muſt be had to the Church of Rome, The Decrees of General Councels, Conſent of the ancient Fathers; and above all, to the Scripture expounded in the ſenſe of the Church. When he had made an end, all the Biſhops ſtood up, and ſaid, If the Pro­teſtants will ſubſcribe to this Article, they will not refuſe to di­ſpute the reſt: but if not, they ought not to have any more audince, but to be chaſed out of the whole Kingdom. Beza asked leave to anſwer preſently: but it ſeemed not fit to equa­lize a private Miniſter to ſo great a Prince Cardinal; and ſo the Aſſembly was diſſolved. The Prelates were willing that the Colloquie ſhould have been that ended; but the Biſhops of Valence told them it was diſhonourable. Therefore on the 24 day it was again aſſembled in preſence of the Queen and44 Princes, wherein Beza ſpake of the Church, Conditions, and Authority thereof; Of Councels, Of the dignity of the Scri­ptures: So the Hiſtory of Trent hit themmSerres Hi­ſtory of France p. 738. French Hiſtory that day; Beza made anſwer to the Cardinal, and diſputed with Espenceus and Sainctes: and v. 26. he treated with him again of the Lords Supper; the other Miniſters likewiſe replied to ſome Objections of other Doctors of the Sorbon, and finally all was converted into private Conferences, without any reſo­lution or concluſion that might end theſe troubles.

By the appointment of Sigiſmud King of Poland,Anno 1566. there was a Diſputation appointed betwixt the new Arrians, and thoſe who profeſſed the contrary Faith unto them, at Petricovia in Poland. Here there was ſomewhat to do about Preſidentſhip, whether there ſhould be one or more; which was reſolved, that by turns one of each ſhould preſide: and being Papiſts who managed the diſpute againſt the Arrians, they choſe him for the Scribe who had been a Scribler againſt Calvin for hisnnCalv. Opuſe. p. 682, 683, 684. ad fratres Polonos. Epiſtles ad fratres Polonos. The Arrians would not yield to ſay Amen to the prayer of their oppoſites, becauſe they would not ac­knowledge a God in Trinity of Perſons. After this they ſoon brake off without any fruit of their Conferences, asooPoſſevin. Bi­blioth. Select. Tom. 1. c. 13. p. 363. Anno. 1572. Poſſevine, who ſetteth down the diſpute, reporteth.

From that year to 1590,ppAnt. Poſſev. Apparat. Sacer vol. 1. p. 480. Poſſevine gives a Liſt of 21 Diſpu­tations of ſeveral Popiſh Points, held in ſeveral Popiſh Univerſi­ties; but they were but ſuch Diſputations as Bellarmines at Rome, without a perſonal opponent; or if with one, not real and ſe­rious, but onely perſonated.

Staniſlaus Roſcius,Anno 1574. Melch. Adam. in vita Bullin­geri. p. 502. as I have obſerved in the 1 Chapter, that he may reproch the Religion of the Proteſtants for want of unity, alledgeth, That from the Diſputation at Lipſia, Anne 1519. to their Synod in Vilna, 1590. they have had above 100 Meetings, Conferences, Diſputations, Councels and Synods, and yet cannot reconcile themſelves to one another; wherein he ſheweth himſelf a malicious and ſlanderous Papiſt: and to ſpeak with reference torrFerrar. Lexic. Geogr. p. 432. col. 1. fin. Vilna in Sarmatia a chief City of Li­thuania in Poland, where Roſcius was an Abbot; it was at Vilna where the JeſuitſſBucolz. chron. p. 778. Anno 1584. Scarga rang the Bell to a Pariſian Maſſacre of the Proteſtants of that City, where for their too good45 agreement in the truth in their conceits, they would make them agree in tribulation for it under their remorſleſs cruelty: though I confeſs the diſſention I finde in divers of their meetings is ſo much, that I am loth to mention them.

Betwixt theſe two Chronological terms,Anno 1586. Biblioth. Parv. Tom. 1. Graec. & Lat. à p. 194, ad 272. there was publiſh'd a diſpute betwixt Gregentius Archiepiſc. Tophrenſis (ſo he is cal­led) with Herbanus a Jew; wherein Gregantius argueth copi­ouſly and vigorouſly for the Chriſtian againſt the Jewiſh Re­ligion.

Philip Mornay Lord of Pleſſies, Governor of Saumur,Anno 1600. Joh. de Serres gen. Hiſt. of France, much augmented out of appro­ved Authors, by Edw. Grimſ. p. 1052. accuſed by the B ſhop of Eureux to have committed 500 falſhoods in his Book againſt the Maſs, preſented a Petition to K. Henry IV. That his Majeſty would be pleaſed to appoint Commiſſioners to examine every paſſage of Scripture cited in his Book. The King yielded to his motion, and on the fourth of May appointed a Conference betwixt them, which began that day in the great Hall at Fountainbleau: Who were the Commiſſioners, and in what equipage they were placed there, is fully ſet down in the general Hiſtory of France, written by John Serres in the Reign of Henry IV. B fore the Diſputation began, it was de­clared, That it ſhould not bring into debate matters of Doctrine of either Religion, but onely be confined to the Ex­ceptions of the Biſhop, and the Anſwers of the Lord Mor­nay made unto them: Who firſt promiſed in the general,Ibid. that "his hope was, That when he ſhould be equally examined, all men ſhould finde, that he had carried himſelf faithfully and diligently; although it were not to be held ſtrange, if in five thouſand paſſa­ges or more, they have found ſome wherein his eye, his memory, or his judgement hath wavered. Oh, ſaid he, that the Books of the Roman Church which have been written within this hundred years were examined with this rigour! how many ſhould you find that could endure this Trial? Finally, he profeſſed, that, with his Ma­jeſties leave, this act was particular, and could not prejudice the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches of that Realm, which had been before him, and ſhould be after him. And ſo they entred into the matter. French Hiſt. p. 1053.But after the firſt days debate Mornay fell very ſick, ſo the diſpute in that manner proceeded no further. Whereof we ſhall ſpeak more in the next Chapter.

46

The Diſputes of Peter de Moulin with the Jeſuites and other Papiſts in France, are too many to be brought into this Cata­logue, wherein I deſire to be brief: as alſo thoſe of D. Featly, our acute Countryman, both in England and in France.

Anno 1603. was the Conference or Diſputation at Ham­pton Court before King James: ThewwThe firſt days confe­rence at Ham­pton Court, p. 1, 2. parties of oppoſite opi­nions were on the one ſide the Archbiſhop of Canterbury, the Biſhops of London, Durham, Wincheſter, Worceſter, St. Davids, Chicheſter, Carliſle, and Peterborough; the Dans of the Chappel, Worceſter, Weſtminſter, Pauls, Cheſter, Windſor, with Dr. Field, and Dr. King Archdeacon of Notingham: and on the other, Dr. Reynolds, Mr. Spak, Mr. Knewſtubs, and Mr. Chaderton, Agents for the Millenary plaintiffs, as Dr. Barlow Dean of Che­ſter (the partial Penman of that Conference) calleth them; not that they were Chiliaſts or Millenaries, as many are by a miſ­taken ſenſe of Revel. 20.6. but becauſe they agreed much with them who exhibited a Petition to the King with the Subſcription of a thouſand Miniſters. The matters diſliked or queſtioned, were reduced by Dr. Reynolds the Fore-man, to theſe**Ibid. p. 23. four Heads.

Firſt, that the Doctrine of the Church might be preſerved in purity, according to Gods Word.

Secondly, that good Paſtors might be planted in all places to preach the ſame.

Thirdly, that Church government might be ſincerely mini­ſtred, according to Gods Word.

Fourthly, that the Book of Common-prayer might be fitted to more increaſe of piety.

Doctor Francis Write had two Diſputations with Fiſher the Jeſuite;An. 1622. the latter of them in the preſence of King James. With the ſame Jeſuite Dr. Laud then Biſhop of St. Dvids had a diſpute alſo, which are printed, together with Dr. Whites Reply to Jeſuite Fiſhers Anſwer,An. 1624. and the four days Conference betwixt the Jeſuite and his oppoſites appointed by the State; and of Dr. Reynolds with Mr. Hart, all in the Tower of Lon­don, and publiſhed at large in print, I deſire rather to commend to the rending of a judicious Proteſtant, than to abbreviate any thing out of them.

47

Of later times, eſpecially ſince we have been divided into ſo many Sects, we have had (though the Military Sword, God be thanked, be ſheathed) a great deal of Word war; many pre­ſumptuous Challengers to publick diſpute, and ſome too teme­rarious undertakers of them: whereof divers are in print, and ſome as worthy are not printed, as that of yours and Dr. Grew's encounter with Mr. Kiffin and Mr. Knowls at Coventry. Theſe I purpoſely forbear, becauſe they are many, and the moſt of them are of one and the ſame Argument, the Baptiſm of Infants.

I will conclude this Chapter with a few neceſſary Admoni­tions to all true Chriſtians.

Firſt, ſince in all Ages Truth hath met with many enemies, that they do not content themſelves with a bare knowledge or belief of it; but that they endevour to be ſo enabled to plead for, when adverſaries riſe up againſt it, that they may ſtand up, and ſtand out in oppoſition to them: and ſo may not onely be able earneſtly to contend for the faith (once delivered to the Saints, Iude 3.) but manfully to defend it.

Secondly, out of the precedent examples we may draw in­ſtruction for our direction, how to carry on a diſpute, when upon juſt cauſe we are to undertake it, as by that of Michael diſputing with the Devil. We may be cautioned againſt contu­melious ſpeeches againſt our Antagoniſt: for he, when he diſ­puted with the Devil about the Body of Moſes, durſt not bring a­gainſt him a railing accuſation, Jude 9. And from our Saviours encounter with Satan, we may be directed with what weapon, chiefly, to manage our ſpiritual warfare, even with the ſword of the ſpirit, the word of God, as he did; and therewith put his enemy to flight. From the paſſionate exceſſes of ſome Diſ­putants obſerved in this Catalogue, we may be admoniſhed of moderation and meekneſs of ſpirit; that by ſuffering our paſ­ſions to become rampant, we make not our Judgements to be couchant. Other particulars I ſhall make uſe of, eſpecially in proſecution, and completing of the ſixth Chapter, when I come unto it.

48

CHAP. V. Of the various Iſſues and Succeſſes of Conferences, Collo­quies and Diſputations about matters of Religion.

IT is the obſervation ofyyAug. Thuan. apud Melch. Adam in vita Peti Boquini, p. 146. Lorinus in Act. Apoſt. cap. 9. v. 29. at. p. 422. Poſſev. Bibliot. ſelect. tom. 1. c. 13. p. 365. divers learned man, that conflicts in matters of Religion have for the moſt part been fruitleſs of good effects, and ſometimes that they have brought forth much evil fruit. For example: The Collation, Conference or Diſputa­tion of Catholicks with the Donatiſts, though it were fairly carried againſt them, and that by the Teſtimony of the Judge, who was conſtituted as Moderator in the cauſe, yet they would not acknowledge themſelves convinced; and when the ſentence of the Judge was produced againſt them, they raiſed a ſlande­rous report againſt him and their Antagoniſts,zzDicunt judi­cē fuiſſe proe­mio corruptū. Aug. Collat. cum Donatiſt. tom. 7. part. 1. p. 726. as if they had corrupted him with bribes to paſs an honourable ſentence on their ſide: which occaſioned Auguſtine to write a Confutation of them after the publick Collation with them.

And in his particular Diſputation with Poſcentius a Noble­man, and an Arian Heretick; when he was ſhamefully foiled, he vain-gloriouſly gave out,aaAug. ab ipſo ſuperatū Aug. Epiſt. Poſcent. Ep. 174. tom. 2. p. 898. that he had gotten the victory of Auguſtine. But the Examples of our own State and later times may be more for our inſtruction and caution: And we have but too good proof of very bad effects of Conferences or Diſputations with Papiſts;bbSo in the Dean of Pauls and Dean of Windſors Epi­ſtle before the Report of the Conference with Campian, printed ann. 1583. as in the year 1581. when Campian that Thraſonical Champion of the Romiſh Church, of whom we have made mention before, when diſcovered by his Anta­goniſts to be a man of confident undertakings, and impotent performances, yet Reports and Pamphlets were ſpread abroad every where by his party, as though Campian, like ſome great Bear or Lion, had ſhaken his Adverſaries off, like cowardly Curs one after another.

49

What followed upon the diſputes with the Jeſuite Fiſher, and a third with Dr. Laud, the Biſhop of Saint Davids, with the ſameccOf Doctor Whites reply to the Jeſuite Fiſher, p. 8, 9. Fiſher, Dr. White ſheweth in his Epiſtle to the Reader, in theſe words, His Majeſty had experience of the unfaithful dea­ling of Pontificians, when they make relation of ſuch things as paſs by word of mouth onely in private Diſputations; and he well un­derſtood how the Cretizing Jeſuite had dealt with a reverend Biſhop, and with my ſelf; for had we been School-boys of thirteen years old, he could not have made us ſeem more childiſh and unskilful then he did; diſperſing hundreds of papers to his own praiſe, and to our diſgrace.

But ſuch lying reports will, at long running, turn to the diſ­grace of thoſe that divulge them: and that the more, by how much they are the more notoriouſly untrue; as that fiction of theirs of D. Featly his diſpute with the ſame Fiſher, who was ſuch a buſie & pragmatical Jeſuite, as to be found fiſhing for ſilly ſouls in many places: With him the Doctor being drawn to diſpute (by one Mr. Buggs, who in his ſickneſs was ſollicited to ſet up his reſt for ſalvation in the Romiſh Religion) and the diſpute ended:(d)(d)The Romiſh Fiſher caught and held in his own net by Doctor Featly, in the Preface to the Relati­on of the con­ference, June 27. An. 1623. p. 3. About a week after the Earl of Warwick, who was preſent at it, having occaſion to paſs over the Seas, and coming to Saint Omers, had the company of Doctor Weſton at his Inne, to whom this Doctor, taking the Earl for a Roman Catholick, told for freſh and moſt hapyy news out of England, That at a conference betwixt Father Fiſher and Weſton, ſweet Jeſuites, and two Pro­teſtant Miniſters, the Jeſuites had quitted themſelves ſo well, and the Catholicks Faith prevailed ſo far, that two Earls, and one hundred others of the auditory were joyned to the Church of Rome with this encounter of thoſe two Earls. The party to whom he ſpake, was one who could not but ſmile at this relation; for there**Ibid. p. 6. were not near an hundred of both parties in all at the conference, whereof twenty were profeſſed Papiſts, and known Recuſants; and for the reſt, which were Noble men, Gentlemen, and Gentlewomen of qua­lity, with ſome few Divines, there was not any one of them any way ſtaggered in Religion by this meeting: but on the contrary, they have openly profeſt that they were much eſtabliſhed and confir­med in the Proteſtant Religion by it; and Mr. Doctor Featlys Refutation of an Anſwer to the Book inti­tuled the Fiſh­er, &c. p. 130.Buggs himſelfe, whoſe ſatisfaction by this conference was principally intended, who50 before had doubted of our Church, gave thanks after the Dispu­tation to Sir Humph. Lynde for the meeting, and aſſured him that he was well reſolved now of his Religion, that he ſaw plainly it was but the Jeſuites bragging without proofs; and whereas formerly by their Sophiſtical perſwaſions, be was in ſome doubt of the Church, he is now ſo fully ſatisfied of the truth of our Religion, that he doth utterly diſclaim the Popiſh Prieſts company, and their Do­ctrine alſo.

Though it be a wicked thing to lye (albeit it were for a good intent, yea, for the glory of God, Iob 13.7. Rom. 3.7, 8. and no wickedneſs as ſuch, is matter of laughter, but rather of ſorrow) yet they mingle ſuch folly and abſurdity with their lying, as the Prieſts of Baal did with worſhipping of their Idol, that they deſerve to be derided for it, as they were by the Prophet Eli­jah, 1 King. 18.26, 27. and the more, becauſe it is frequent with them, and by ſome of the approved as a pious fraud: but ſometimes their malignity produceth ſad effects, eſpecially of publick diſputes; as is obſervable concerning the Diſpute of that Illuſtrious and Incomparable man, the Lord Morney, as DoctoreeIlluſtri & incomparabili viro Domino Philippo Mor­nayo, &c. Epiſt. dedicat. prae­fix. Critic. Sacr. Rivet calls him, and the Biſhop of Eureux at Foun­tainbleau forementioned; the Noble and Learned Lord confi­ding in the truth of his Allegations, which were excepted a­gainſt, as hath been ſaid, wanting the uſe of his own Library, and forced to make uſe of his Adverſaries Books: they brought him one Book over night of one Edition, another in the morning of another; and withal, asffDoctor Sut­lives Anſwer to Parſons, l. 3. c. 12. and out of him Mr. Birkbeck in his Anſwer to the Antido­tiſt, added to the ſecond E­dition of the Proteſtants Evid. p. 474. ſome have written, put a powder into the places quoted, the ſmell whereof was like to have coſt him his life: that hegSerres French Hiſt. Anno 1600. p. 1053. fell very ſick upon the firſt days conference, ſo as they could proceed no farther, is teſtified in the report of their Diſpute in the French Hiſtory; and ſome of his Adver­ſaries ſpake ſuſpiciouſly of his ſickneſs, as if it were more in his mind then in his Body, being aſtoniſſhed with the ſucceſs of the praludium of that dayes Velitation, whichhPleſſaeus attonitus ſucceſſu praecedentis velitationis apud Gisbertum Voetium de deſperata cauſa papatus, l. 3. ſect. 2. p 681. col. 2. Gisbertus Voetius diſproves: and concerning the cauſe of his diſeaſe, he ſaith nothing of poyſon, becauſe he takes it from ſuch Authors of51 the Popiſh party, as if they knew it to be true, would rather conceal it if they could, then let it come abroad into the world. But the matter is probable enough;

Firſt, becauſe there are ſuch poyſons, as will not onely make one ſick, but kill him too, though he neither eat them nor drink them; as by anointing the leaves of a book with poyſon, wherebyiiBerkbeck ex Binfield ubi ante. Averroes is ſaid to have killed Avicen; by poyſon­ing of clothes, arms, ſeats, ſaddles, whereofkkJoh. Maria­na de Rege, &c. l. 1. c. 7. p. 67. Mariana the Jeſuite ſhewes many examples in his book De Rege, and Regis Inſtitutiones; yea, a man may be killed by carrying a poyſoned Torch:llAnno 1574. Carolus Cardinalis Lotharingiae diem obiit non ſine ſuſpicione veneni, facis per noctent praelatae peſtifero odore cerebro corrupto. Bucolz. Index. chronol. p. 638. ex Thuano. ſo was the Cardinal of Loraine, a great and buſie man in the Councel of Trent, poyſoned with the ſmoke of a Torch carried before him in the night.

Secondly, it is not improbable, that ſome of the Lord Morney or Pleſſes enemies might both know that there were ſuch poyſons, and where to procure them, and how to apply them;Haereticis ob­ſtinatis bene­ficium eſt quod de hac vita tollantur; nam quò diutiùs vivunt plu­res errores ex­cogitāt, plures pervertunt, & ma jorem ſibi damnationem acquirunt. Bellarm. Tom. 2. l. 3. dc Laicis c. 21. verbis ul­timis. for it ſeems by that we now noted of the Cardinal of Loraine (which fell out An. 47.15. ) that deſtructive arts were neither unknown, nor unpracticed at that time; and the diſpute betwixt the L. M. and the Biſhop of Eureux was 26. years after. Any ſuch wickedneſs is the more probable of a Papiſt againſt a Pro­teſtant, becauſe of the Popiſh Doctrine, which is this, it is a benefit for obſtinate Hereticks to be taken out of this life, for the longer they lve, the more errors they invent, and the more they pervert, and procure to themſelves the greater damnation. It was not to be expected, but the diſputation being broken off by the L. M. his occaſion, the Papiſts would inſult and re­port whatſoever might make for their own glory, and his diſ­paragement, as indeed they did; but how poorly the Popiſh Biſhop began to make good his charge and challenge againſt the L. M. the learned Reader may ſee by that whichmmGisbert. Vo­etius de deſpe­rata cauſa pa­patus l. 3. Sect. 2. c. 10. à p. 680, ad 692. Giſ­bert Voetius hath written of it in his Book Of the deſperate cauſe of the Papacy, and by the excellentnA refutation of calumnious relation of the conference of Monſieur Pleſſis, and Mon­ſieur of Eureux by one againſt N. D. I. P. 3. part printed by Arn. Hatfield, An. 1600. Refutation of the Tract ſet out by the L. M. after the Diſpute for his own juſt defence,52 to which the Biſhop his AdverſaryooPerronus ad illum librum nunquam re­ſpondit. Ibid. And this was 35. years after, for Voetius his book was prin­ted An. 1655. and the diſ­pute was An. 1600. and this Apologet. Treat. ſoon after. never made any anſwer.

But the moſt certain and remarkable iſſue or effect of this Diſpute was, thatppSerres French Hiſto­ry ad Ann. 1600. p. 1053. Canoy one of the Commiſſioners for the Di­ſpute, Preſident in the Chamber of the Edict at Charters, left his profeſſion of the Reformed Religion, and became a Romiſh Catho­lick; many thought that Caſaubon the other Proteſtant Commiſſi­oner, and Greek Reader to King H. the Fourth, would have fol­lowed the ſame courſe; but he left not the world long in this opini­on, having written to the Synod of Miniſters aſſembled at Gargean, that he was not ſo wretchedly inſtructed in piety, as that for want of knowledge of the truth, he ſhould ſuffer himſelf to be carried a­way with every humour of Doctrine.

The cauſes of ſo little good ſucceſs of Debates, Diſputes, Conferences, or Controverſies of Religion, betwixt parties of oppoſite opinions are divers; in ſome the prevalent power of fanſie or imagination above judgement, is the cauſe, that Ar­guments, whether artfiicial of reaſon, or inartificial of teſti­mony, will work little upon prejudicated fancy: of the various working whereof we may read many obſervable particulars in the learned diſcourſe of Picus Earl of Mirandula, ofrrJo. Picus Mi­randula lib. de imaginatione, vol. 2. operum p. 91. praecip. c. 7, 8, 9. that Title.

Secondly, With ſome, cuſtome is a great obſtacle againſt the receiving of truth: and thence it is that thoſe who have been trained up in untruth from their Child-hood, are with greateſt difficulty convinced of it, or converted from it. We may ſee the refractorineſs of this reſiſtance in Peter, Acts 10. who, when v. 12,13. a viſion was preſented unto him, ſhewing him ſeveral kinds of creatures, clean and unclean, and he had a command to kill and eat, v. 13. Not ſo v. 14. Lord (ſaid he) why ſo Peter? he gives this reaſon of his refuſal, though the command came from Heaven; becauſe of his cuſtomary forbear­ance of forbidden meats, I have never eaten any thing that is common and unclean.

Thirdly, With othersssPrava vel honoris, vel pecuniae cupi­ditas animos diſputantium invaſit, ut tanquam in pugna ſola ſpectaretur victoriaLudovVives de cauſis corrupt. artium, l. . p. 38. a corrupt cupidity of glory or gaint is a great cauſe of their ſtanding out againſt clear diſcoveries; ſuch will not yield to verity, ſo long as they can with confidence53 and impudence make any ſhew or appearance of victory, or outface the foil they have taken in diſpute.

Fourthly, Some withſtand the truth in unrighteouſneſs, prin­cipally out of hatred and diſdain of their Adverſaries, leſt it ſhould be thought, that by them they were brought to yield unto it: this was the humour of the Arch-Biſhop and Cardinal of Capua, who would yield to reform nothing, though many corruptions were diſcovered,ttNicol. Archi­epiſ, Capua­nus, Magna contentione clamabat ne quid omnino reformaretur, ne Lutherani jactent quaſi ab ipſis prope­modum adacti illud fecerint. Job. Slidan Comment. l. 12. p. 242. An. 1538. left the Lutherans ſhould brag that they had been brought to reformation by them.

Fifthly, Some account it their credit to be no changelings, eſpecially in Religion; not knowing the difference betwixt con­ſtancy and obſtinacy.

Sixthly, And oft times it falls out, that by the ſubtilty or elo­quence of Diſputants, when they are ſomewhat evenly match­ed, the Auditory is kept pendulous, or irreſolute; even he, perhaps, for whoſe ſake the Diſpute or Conference was under­taken, asuuIlle cujus cauſa in con­greſſum de­ſcendis Scrip­turarum, ut cum dubitantem confirmes ad veritatem an nagis ad haereſim deverget, hoc ipſo motus, quod te videat nihil promoviſſe aequo gradu negandi & defendendi, certe de pari & altercatione incertior diſcedit, neſciens quem Haereticum judicet. Terul. prae­ſcript. adverſ. haereticos Tom. 1. c. 18. p. 170. Tertull. ſheweth; He, ſaith Tertullian, for whoſe cauſe thou deſcendeſt into a Controverſie of Scripture, that thou maiſt confirm him againſt doubting, it is hard to ſay whether he tend more to Verity or to Hereſie, becauſe he ſees thou pre­vaileſt nothing, the diſpute going on in an equal degree of denying and defending: certainly by ſuch a parity in altercation he will depart more uncertain, not knowing what he ſhould judge to be Hereſie.

Seventhly, When Conferences and Diſputations in Religion ſucceed not ſo well as good men would have them, is, becauſe they are not ordered or managed in ſuch a manner as they ſhould be; whereof I ſhall ſpeak in the next Chapter, as in its poper place. In the mean time this good order will require, that I now obſerve, what good ſucceſs hath been the iſſue of ſome diſputations betwixt Michael and the Devil in Iude, Chriſt and the Devil, Matth. 4. By the way, ſome take Michael the Arch-Angel for Chriſts Son, for a created Angel to me it is, which I will now neither determine nor diſcuſs: and for the54 diſputes of Stephen and Paul, they muſt needs have the better of their adverſaries, becauſe they were not able to reſiſt the Wiſ­dome and the Spirit by which they ſpake, Act. 6.10. not with any evidence of truth, or appearance of reaſon: yet when the truth was moſt illuſtriouſly ſet forth, ſome were ſo blinded and hardned with their own malice and envy, that they could not ſee it, or would not confeſs themſelves to be convinced by it; is, as when our Saviour had mightily and miraculouſly proved himſelf to be the Son of God by caſting out Devils, the Devil would not ſuffer his Adverſaries to acknowledge it, but ſtirred them up to impute the power of the holy Spirit to Beelzebub the Prince of Devils, Matth. 12.24. And when Athanaſius had a Diſputation with Arius, he would not yield that the power of Truth had prevailed, butwwArius in quit nulli dubium eſt quin magi­cis artibus Athanaſius non deſinat judicum pervertere ſenſus, &c. Athanaſ. diſp. contra Arium Laodiceae, tom. 2. col. 393. moſt abſurdly ſuggeſted, that he managed his cauſe by Magical Arts.

Notwithſtanding the iſſues and effects of ſome Diſputations have been more ſucceſsful (beſides thoſe which were carried on by a Divine Power againſt Humane or Devilliſh malignity) as that of Octavius a Chriſtian, with Cecilius an Heathen, ſet forth by Minutius Felix; whereof we have obſerved before, that ſome take that for a real ſtory, ſome for a pious diſcourſe com­poſed by Minutius himſelf Dialogue-wiſe, under the borrowed names ofxxCaecilium ſuperſtitioſis vanitatibus e­tiamnum in­haerentem di­ſputatione graviſſima ad veram religio­nem reforma­vit Octavius: ſic Minutius Felix Concluſ. Dialog. Tom. 9. Bibliothec. Patrum, col. 22. Octavius a Chriſtian, and Cecilius an Heathen: the effect whereof, whether it were hiſtoricall, or poeticall, or moral, was ſuch as was anſwerable to ſuch convincing premiſes, viz. that Cecilius converted by Octavius from ſuperſtitious vanities, they parted with mutual congratulation, and Minutius thereby accounted himſelf Felix,yPoſt haec laeti hilareſquediſceſſimus; Caecilius quod crediderit, Octavius quod vicerit, ego quod ille crediderit, hic vicerit, Ibid. rejoycing with and for them both.

zEuſeb. Eccleſ. Hiſt. l. 6. p. 32.Euſebius andaHierom. Catal. Script. Eccleſ. tom. 1. p. 292. Hierome make report of Beryllus Biſhop of55 Boſtra in Arabia, that he fell from the faith to ſtrange doctrine of the Divinity and Humanity of Chriſt; but conferring with Origen, was convicted by manifeſt proof, and recovered to his former ſound opinion. The effect of the Diſpute betwixtbbBaron. Annal. tom. 2. ad ann. 277. parag. 16. Ar­chelaus and Manes was rather the confuſion of the Heretick then his converſion; for he run away from his Antagoniſt when he had convinced him, and would not appear in his ſight any more. And though Auguſtine ſometimes wholly loſt his labour in conflict with Hereticks, who continued contumacious and clamorous againſt the Truth and him: yet ſometimes he was ve­ry ſucceſsful in his Diſputations with them; ſometimes as Origen was with Beryllus,ccAug. fin. l. 2. de Artis cum foelice Manich. tom 6. p. 657. as when he brought Felix the Manichean Heretick to a Recantation of his Errour, and ſubſcription a­gainſt it: ſometimes as Archelaus, when he diſputed with Ma­nes, whoſe foil and flight I have noted in another Chapter: As when having diſputed with Fortunatus a Manichean, andddPoſſid. in vit•…Aug. c. 6. put him to ſilence, he put him alſo to ſo much ſhame, that he went out of the City of Hippo, and returned thither no more. More might be obſerved of his good ſucceſs, either for converſion or victory, but that I muſt leave a little room for ſome other memorable Examples of like ſort; not to mention that which I had occaſion to bring ineeIbid. c. 4. ad ann. 325. before, of a ſubtile Phi­loſopher and Logician convinced and converted by a plain old man. We may note next the iſſue of that famous Diſputation betwixt Maximus the Monk, and Pyrrhus the Archbiſhop of Conſtantinople, about theffSee cap. 4. ann. 645. Will of Chriſt; which was, that the Archbiſhop gave way to the Truth propoſed and proved by Maximus. The iſſue of the Diſpute (betwixt Gregentius a Greek Biſhop with Herbanus a Jew) continued about 40 days toge­ther,ggTom. 1. Bibli. Patrum Graec, Lat. p. 277. concluded with the converſion of many from the Jews. I will conclude this point of the good ſucceſs of Diſputation with one or two domeſtick; the one is of Dr. Reynolds con­ferring or diſputing with Hart in the Tower, who it ſeems in one point of moment was brought to acknowledge a Proteſtant Truth, viz.hhHart in his Epiſt. to the indifferent Reader, p. 2. before the Conference. That the opinion which makes the Pope a Temporal Lord over Kings and Princes, is unreaſonable and unprofitable al­together; for he hath not to meddle with them or their civility, much leſs to depoſe them, or give away their Kingdoms: that's no part of56 his Commiſſion. But the Doctrine ofiiNon licet Chriſtianis to­lerare regem infidelem aut haereticum, ſi ille conetur ſubditos ad ſu­am haereſim vel infidelita­tem pertrahere: ad judicare an rex pertrahat ad haereſim necne, pertinet ad Pontificem cui eſt commiſſa cura Religionis, ergo Pontificis eſt judicare regem eſſe deponendum vel non deponendum. Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 5. c. 7. tom. 1. p. 351. col. 1. Bellarmine is, (wherein not onely the Jeſuites, but other Zelots for the Papacy follow him) That Chriſtians ought not to tolerate an Infidel or Heretical King, if he endevour to draw his Subjects to Hereſie or Infidelity: but to judge whether the King draw his Subjects to Hereſie or no, belongeth to the Pope, to whom is committed the care of Religion.

So that it belongeth to the Pope to try whether he be to be de­poſed or not.

But had the learned and religious Doctor prevailed nothing at all with his Adverſary, but that Hart had been ſo hardened in all Popiſh Errors, as to renounce none of them, as he did what he could by Sophiſms and Lies, by Fraud and Falſhood to out-face the Truth, askkConfer. c. 7. diviſ. 7. p. 377. Dr. Reynolds juſtly chargeth him; yet we cannot but account it an happy effect of their Diſpute, that it produced in print ſo excellent a Book as the Report of that Conference is, ſo full of all kinde of Learning pertinently ap­plied, and meeting with the ſhuffling ſhifting Papiſts at every turn.

Though in this reſpect this Conference proved in the iſſue and effect of it better than was expected, yet it is more ſtrange, and ſuch as the like hath ſeldome hapned, which fell out upon the Diſpute of him and his Brother William:Mr. Fullers Church-Hiſt. of Great Brit. l. 10 p. 47. 48. John Reynolds, Mr. Harts Antagoniſt, at the firſt was a zealous Papiſt, whilſt William his Brother was as earneſt a Proteſtant; and afterwards providence ſo ordered it, that by their mutual Diſputation John Reynolds turned an eminent Proteſtant, and William an invete­rate Papiſt, in which perſwaſion he died. This gave the occa­ſion to an excellent Copy of Verſes, concluding with this Diſtich:

Quod genus hoc pugnae est ubi victus gaudet uterque,
Et ſimul alteruter ſe ſuperaſſe dolet?
What war is this, when conquered both are glad,
And either to have conquered other, ſad?
57

The ſucceſs of the Diſpute betwixt Dr. Featly and Fiſher both good and bad, I have obſerved already in this Chapter. And ſo much may ſuffice for the iſſues and effects of Colloquies, Conferences and Diſputes in matters of Religion.

CHAP. VI. How Diſputations are to be ordered that the Truth may be cleared; and being cleared, both it and they who plead for it may be ſecured from reprochful miſ-reports.

THough nothing be many times more raſhly undertaken than a diſpute of Religion, yet in nothing is more pru­dence and caution required than in that, that it may be mana­ged to the beſt advantage for victory on the Truths ſide. And therefore where there is an aſſociation of Miniſters, it will be agreeable to their goodneſs and wiſdome, to joyn in a reſolution not to enter the Liſts of publick Diſputation with any, though provoked, without a ſerious conſultation of the Brotherhood, to deliberate,

Firſt, Whether the matter be fit to be diſputed or no.

Secondly, Concerning the perſons who are to be actors in it, or preſent at it.

Thirdly, What ſhall be the Laws and Conditions of Di­ſpute.

Firſt, whether the matter be fit to be diſputed or no:aa〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 31. tom. 1. q. 531. Gre­gory Nazianzen propoundeth it as matter of ſpecial conſidera­tion, that we diſpute not of matters which are above the model of our own wits, and the Auditors apprehenſion and ability to conceive. The EmperourbSozomen. Hiſtor. Eccleſ. lib. 7. c. 6. Gratian would not allow the Arrians to diſpute of God, and therefore by an eſpecial Law forbade58 ſuch Diſputations, becauſe the Myſtery of the Trinity is a My­ſtery of Faith far above the reach of Humane Reaſon. In lower and moreccDe vulgari­bus rebus diſ­putantem ali­quem vinci minime gravè eſt; ne que enim omnis eſt, &c. graviſſimum autem eſt divi­nitatem detri­mento affici, camqueſophiſtis prodere. Elias Cretenſ. Comment. in Nazianz. orat. 23. tom. 2. col. 852. vulgar matters for a man to be overcome or gra­vell'd, as Elias Cretenſis noteth upon Nazianzen, is no great matter, becauſe every one hath not the art of disputing or ſolving of Sophiſms; but it is a ſad thing for the Divinity of God or Chriſt to be disparaged, and as it were to be betraid into the hands of Sophiſters. The Heathens were wary in preſerving the reve­rence of Religion, that they held itdMala & impia conſuetudo eſt contra Deos diſputandi, ſive ex animo id fit ſive ſimulatè. Cicer. de natur. Deor. lib. 2. an evil and impious cu­ſtome to diſpute of their gods, whether an adverſary or in good earneſt.

Though he who hath this fundamental infidelity in his heart, may be diſputed out of his Atheiſm by ſecret conference, yet it is no way lawful to enter the Liſts of publick Diſputation with an Atheiſt, as if it were a problematical point whether there were a God or no; no more meet is it to entertain a publick diſpute with Antiſcripturiſts, eſpecially now, ſince hiseeThe humble Petition and Advice to His Highneſs the L. Protector, &c. p. 27, 28, 29. High­neſs the Lord Protector, his Councel, and the Members of the Parlament, take an Oath To uphold and maintain the true Refor­med Proteſtant Chriſtian Religion in the purity thereof, according to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and to incourage the profeſſion and profeſſors of the ſame. Nor will it, as I conceive, be fit to admit the Arminians to a publick Diſpute, eſpecially of Mr. John Goodwyns fancy or faction; as his abſurd and hor­rible Errours have been lately and lively ſet forth in their colours byffPag. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69. of his ſolid and acute Confu­tation of Mr. Joh. Goodwyns Calumniatory Cavil in his Book which he calleth〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or The Triers, &c. Mr. Marchiamont Nedham. And as it is matter of religi­ous piety to forbear ſuch diſputes upon any point as may violate the Majeſty of Religion; ſo I believe it is a civil duty which we owe our Superiours, who are pleaſed to protect Orthodox Reli­gion, not to offer any part of it whereof they take the Patro­nage, as in the Oath fore-mentioned, and without their licence and allowance in ſuch a way as their prudence ſhall approve of: And it cannot but be matter of great offence and ſcandal to any prudent and pious Chriſtian, to have any fundamental point of Faith once delivered to the Saints, delivered up to be toſſed up­on59 the tongues of men; it may be ſuch asggGeg. Naz. Orat. 33. tom 1. p. 531. Nazianzen taxeth, as making a ſport in a trifling manner to diſpute of divine mat­ters. Nor are ſome queſtions more to be forborn for their ſa­cred Sublimity, than others for their ridiculous Levity; as, whether according to thehhMulta rena­ſcentur quae jam cecidere, cadnt­que Quae nuc ſunt in honore vocabula, ſi vo­let uſus; Quem penes arbitrium eſt, & jus & norma loquendi. Horat. So the Greek word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Tyrannus, was anciently taken for a King in a good ſenſe, when Homer called Jupiter〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: But for many hundred years ago it hath been taken in an ill ſenſe, Tempore Lucae vocabulum illud Tyrannus tantum accipiebatur in malam partem apud Gaecos & Latinos. Eſtius Act. Apoſtol. 19. v. 9. So the word Idiot in Lukes time was ta­ken onely for one that is unlearned and ignorant. So Peter and John are called〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Unlearned and Idiots, Acts 4.13. And 1 Cor. 14.16. How ſhall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Idiot; and 23. If there come in thoſe that are ignorant and unbelievers,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Idiots and unbelievers. So the word Knave, in Chaucers and Gowers time, and in the Stat. 1. c. 3. ann. 14 of Ed. 3. ſignified a ſervant. See Minſhaws Dictionary, verbo Knave: and the French word Madam, is of that latitude in the proper original ſignification, that any woman that hath a ſervant, may by her ſervant be called Madam. Were it not now an unreaſonable innovation, to go ſo far out of the received uſe of words, as to call a King a Tyrant, an Apoſtle an Idiot, an honeſt Servant a Knave, an ordinary Husbandmans wife Madam? The firſt would be dangerous, the ſecond blaſphemous, the third ſlande­rous, the fourth ridiculous, becauſe quite out of uſe in our manner of ſpeech; as the word Thou is, as applied to Superiours in a civil, or rather by the Quakers in an un­civil ſenſe. Law of Language, which is a com­mon uſe, we ſhould ſay You in civility to our Superiours, or Thou unto all, with thoſe proud, rude and railing Levellers, the Quakers: On whoſe abſurd and novel vanity I will here be­ſtow a marginal Note (h) and no more.

There is another queſtion of note, but neither for the ſuper­lative eminency, nor for the extreme lowneſs and lightneſs of it, as that of the Quakers, but for the ſubtilty, unprofitableneſs and impoſſibility to be determined by publick and perſonal di­ſputation; and that is the captious queſtion of the Papiſts, touching the Viſibility of the Church in all Ages: In which point they have made bold Challenges to the Proteſtants party, who in my poor opinion ſhould rather have diſputed altogether againſt the unreaſonableneſs of the queſtion, than have under­taken the diſcuſſion of it, as Dr. Featly did with Fiſher: For though he ſaid much very learnedly and wittily after his man­ner,60 partly to ſhew the impertinency of the Propoſal, to prove the Proteſtant Church viſible in all Ages, and to name viſible Profeſſors of Proteſtant Religion in all Ages; and was very cautelous in his diſtinctions and aſſertions, for the framing of his Concluſions to the firſt queſtion, which was, thatiiThe Romiſh Fiſher caught & held in his own Net, part. 1. p. 103. The Pro­teſtant Church, according to the diſtinctions and aſſertions premi­ſed, hath been in all Ages in ſome degree viſible: And uſed the like prudential courſe concerning his Concluſion of the latter queſtion, Of the Names of Proteſtant profeſſors in all Ages; yet he undertook to give in a Catalogue of them in every Age, beginning with the Evangeliſts and Apoſtles, and going on from Clemens Romanus to Clemens Alexandrinus, with whom he makes up his ſecond Century. Dr. Featly Ro­miſh Fiſher caught & held in his own Net, par. 1. p. 8.Of which queſtion himſelf con­feſſeth, that it required rather a large Hiſtorical Volume, than a brief Syllogiſtical Diſpute. For what time would be required to bring ſuch a Debate to a ſatisfactory Iſſue? how many dayes diſpute, how many moneths, yea how many years will be taken up in diſtinguiſhing legitimate Writings of the Ancients, from ſuch as are ſpurious or ſuſpected for ſuch even by the Papiſts themſelves, who reckon of thoſe ambiguous Brats no fewer than 187 ſeveral Treatiſes? and then for the legitimate works, how many are corrupted, and which Edition of them is the trueſt? and when that is known, Where ſhall we finde the do­ctrines in difference betwixt the Papiſts and us diſcuſſed or re­ſolved, when many of them were altogether unknown in their dayes? For thoſe that ſpeak any thing of the matters in que­ſtion, it is hard to judge what is their ſetled judgement in any point; for ſometimes they play the Orators, flouriſhing with all figures of Rhetorick, which muſt not be taken in a Dogma­tical ſenſe; asllDum eſſem adoleſcens, imo penè pu­er Scripſi ad avunculum, ſed in illo ope­re pro aetate tunc luſimus, & calentibus. adhuc Rhetorum ſtudiis, &c. nunc jam cano capite & arata rugis fronte, &c. Hieron. ad Nepot. Tom. 1. p. 11. princip. Epiſt. Hierome confeſſeth of himſelf in his Epiſtle to Nepotian, While I was a young man, ſaid he, and in a manner a Boy, I wrote unto my Ʋncle Heliodorus, but in that work I did but play with Rhetorical Studies, and painted my paper with a Scholastical flouriſh; now my head is grey, and my forehead fur­rowed, I write in another manner. Which may give them cauſe in their elder years, to retract and correct what they wrote61 when they were not ſo ripe in judgement being young: So did Auguſtine in his two Books of Retractions. And ſome things they have written in paſſion, violently turning from one extreme to another: So did Dionyſius Alexandrinus; and thereforemmBaſil. Epiſi. 41. Maxim. Philoſoph. Baſil compareth him to a Gardener, who when a bough groweth crooked one way, writhes it to be as crooked they other way. And in examining of theſe humane Teſtimo­nies, it will require time and judgement to diſtinguiſh particular Opinions from Church-doctrines. Now by that time all aſſer­tions in difference have been carried through all Ages, with all the diſtinctions and cautions until Luthers time, the Proteſtants bringing their proofs, and the Papiſts theirs, and time allowed for each party to make Exceptions as they pleaſe, how many years will be ſpent, and at laſt how fruitleſs will all this labour be? when if there were ſuch conſent to be found among them, as the Papiſts brag of, it would make but an humane Faith, which might be ſubject to falſhood, asnnQuod hiſto­rici quidam meminerint eorum concili­orum, non po­teſt parere niſi fidem humanā cui poteſt ſub­eſſe falſum. Bellarm. lib. 2Sacr. offic. c. 25. verbo ult. Tom. 3. Contr. p. 86. Bellarmine confeſſeth. And yet both the ſubtile Jeſuites, and ſilly Papiſts by their In­ſtruction, call for this trial of Religion by bringing a Catalogue of Profeſſors in all Ages; on which the Jeſuite Fiſher ſo perti­naciouſly inſiſted,ooThe relation of the Confe­rence, Jun. 27. 1623. p. 28. that he would not anſwer Dr. Featly touch­ing Chriſt and his Apoſtles in the firſt Century, unleſs he firſt brought in a Catalogue of Profeſſors of Proteſtancy through­out all Ages: And which ſhewed his impiety and abſurdity in the higheſt degree, in the Catalogue called for, he wouldppIbid. p. 27. not allow the Doctor to begin with Chriſt and his Apoſtles.

This plainly bewrayed the Jeſuites great diffidence in his crazy cauſe, and his craft to ſecure it from a due trial, which this way he knew could never be effected: and with this fallacy they have locked up their ſeduced Proſelytes in misbelief; ſo that we know not how to deal with them: for they will not hear us in any thing, unleſs we ſpeak to the point of viſibility in all ages; and if we offer to anſwer them in a readier and ſurer way, by the infallible Teſtimony of the Scriptures, they will not accept of it: yet notwithſtanding all the advātage they have had by the predominacy of their power over Perſons, Books & Preſ­ſes, to print and ſuppreſs what they pleaſe: we need not decline that way of trial out of any diſtruſt in our cauſe, ſince there62 is yet ſo much upon record for us, and againſt them; that if ſuch a tedious and dilatory diſcuſſion of our differences were to be undertaken by diſpute face to face, they could be no gay­ners in the utmoſt iſſue of it, as we may well judge by Mr. Berkbeck in his Proteſtants evidences of the ſecond Edition printed this year in Folio, ſo much amended and augmented a­bove the former in Quarto, that I take it to be the beſt Book extant in that kind.

When upon deliberation a reſolution is made what ſhall be diſputed on;

The next conſideration is concerning the Perſons.

For the Perſons, and they are chiefly,

  • 1. Disputants.
  • 2. Preſidents, or Moderators.
  • 3. Notatories.
  • 4. Witneſſes.
  • 5. For others, whether admitted by choice, or promiſcuouſly without limitation or exception.

Firſt for the Diſputants; in them theſe four qualifications are chiefly requiſite:

  • 1. They muſt be learned.
  • 2. Of quick conceipt.
  • 3. Temperate, not paſſionate, or cholerick.
  • 4. Pious, preferring Verity before Victory.

Firſt, they muſt be learned in the Learned Languages, in Arts, and Hiſtories, in Textual and Polemical Divinity; for they may in conflict be put to it, to make uſe of all the learning they have.

Secondly, They muſt be quick in conceipt, becauſe they muſt preſently without pauſe or ſtudy take their advantage, either of objecting or anſwering.

Thirdly, They muſt be temperate, not paſſionate, or chole­rick like Coſterus the Jeſuite; for Coſterus, of whom Doctor Halls obſervation is,Dr. Hall. 1. De­cad. of Epiſt. Epiſt. 5. p. 282. that he wamore teaſty then ſubtile, more able to wrangle then to ſatisfie: for paſſion will blind the judg­ment, ſo as to make a man leſs fit to make uſe of his own ſtrength, or to take advantage of his Adverſaries weakneſs; beſides, if a man be cholerick, it will make him forget the mo­deration63 of Michael the Arch-Angel, in forbearing railing ac­cuſations, Jude 9. And the caution ofrrHaec eſt modeſtia diſ­putantis ut nulla adfera­tur audienti­bus ex diſſe­rentis ſermone moleſtia: Chry­ſoſt. in Epiſt., ad Hebr. ch. 2. homil. 3 Tom. 4. col. 1679. Chryſoſtom, which is, that the modeſty of the Diſputants ſhould be ſuch, that no­thing drop from their mouths which may be offenſive to the ears of the hearers, which doth not only give diſtaſte to them, but takes off much from the acceptation both of the Diſputant and the cauſe diſputed; one that appeared in Beza's diſputation at Poy­ſie, when though he were an excellent learned man, and plea­ded the cauſe of Reformation very ſufficiently againſt the Ro­maniſts, was taken up and commanded to conclude;ssHiſt. Conci. of Trent, l. 5. p. 453. becauſe in the matter of the Sacrament he grew into an heat, which not only very much provoked the Prelates to indignation and diſdain againſt the new Evangeliſts, as the Cardinal of Tornon called him and his party, but gave ill ſatisfaction to thoſe of his own ſide: but this exorbitancy of paſſion is more familiarly the offence of the Romiſh wranglers, who are choſen of pur­poſe by their party for Diſputants, becauſe of their zeal to the cauſe, which kindles quickly into choler, as we have partly obſerved in Eccius and Gretzr; and may further note in one of Doctor Featleys Antagoniſts (Doctor Eglestone) who was ſo tranſported with paſſion, as to ſay to him,ttThe Romiſh Fiſher caught and held in his own Net, par. 3. p. 128. I will be hanged at the next Gallows if I make you not confeſs that it implies no contradiction, for an accident to be without a ſubject; if he wou'd have ſtood to his word, he had been ſure to be hanged; for it was not in his power to force the Doctor to ſuch a confeſ­ſion.

Fourthly, The Diſputants ought to be pious, that (out of conſcience) they may prefer Verity before Victory. Of this mind doubtleſs was the Apoſtle Paul, when he profeſſed he could do nothing againſtuuVictoriâ ni­hil dulcius, Cicer. Act. in verrem, fol. 876. the truth, 2 Cor. 13.8. to a corrupt and carnal mind nothing is more ſweet then victory; but if truth appear to have the preeminence, a godly man will not be a­ſhamed to yield unto it, though with change of his opinion; for he takes not himſelf to be of ſo great authority and fame, as to be aſhamed that he erred, aswwNe erubeſ­cas de com­mutatione ſententiae; non es tantae authoritatis & famae, ut erraſſe te pudeat. Hieron. Apolog. adverſ. Ruffin. Tom. 2. p. 199. Hierom ſaid to Ruffinus, do nothing through ſtrife or vain glory, Phil. 2.3. as the Papiſts64 did againſt the Proteſtants in the Councel of Trent,xxHiſt. of the Councel of Trent, l. 1. An. 1530. when as Cardinal Langi Arch-Biſhop of Saltzburg ſaid, that the Refor­mation of the Maſs was honeſt, the liberty of meats conveni­ent; but that a poor Monk, meaning Luther, ſhould reform all, was not to be endured: ſome conceive it matter of moment, that the Diſputants be matched in quality and calling, as in theyyThe Romiſh Fiſher caught and held in his own Net, p. 3. p. 118, 119. Diſputation betwixt Maſter Walker and Doctor Egle­ſton.

Before I diſpute upon the queſtion, ſaith Mr. Walker, I deſire to know your quality and calling, whether you be a profeſſed Popiſh Prieſt or no?

Dr. Egleſton. I am a Roman Catholick, not a Prieſt, but a Doctor of Phyſick.

Mr. Walker. I deſire then another Adverſary, ſome of the Prieſts here preſent, that we may diſpute on equal terms; I hold the cal­ling of a Proteſtant Preacher and Divines, more honourable then a­ny Popiſh Prieſthood; and therefore if your Prieſts think them­ſelves too good to dispute with me, you ſhall not brag that your Lay­men are fit matches to dispute with Proteſtant Preachers and Di­vines.

Dr. Egleſton. Mr. Walker, you being a Divine, ought to give me, though a Lay-man, the beſt ſatisfaction you can.

Mr. Walker, I am ready to give you ſatisfaction, if you come as a Layman, ought to a Divine, that is, with a deſire to hear, and to be instructed in all humility, not with a mind to contradict and oppoſe the truth.

And ſo they proceeded to Diſputation, as in the relation quoted in the Margin; and it may be the Doctor of Phyſick was a better Divine then the Prieſts that were preſent.

Doctor Brian in this reſpect might have had more juſt cauſe of diſdain, to take Mr. Only for his match, then Mr. Walker Doctor Egloston, ſince the diſparity was more betwixt them two, then betwixt a Divine that was not a Doctor, and a Do­ctor that was not a Divine.

This for the qualification of the Diſputants. Now, ſecondly, for a Moderator, or Preſident, to manage the diſputation with decency and order.

It is requiſite that ſome perſon of worth for wiſdom and65 gravity (and if it may be alſo of power and authority, ſo that his power be not byaſſed by partiality on either ſide) be Preſi­dent and Moderator to mannage the diſputation with order and decency, for prevention of vain jangling and confuſion: when diſputations are national, and particularly authorized by the ſupreme power; that power commonly makes choice of a Pre­ſident, or of Commiſſioners to preſide over the diſputation: ſo did the EmperourzzAug. Breric. Collat. Praefa. Tom. 7. par. 1. p. 684. Honorius, who publiſhed an Edict for diſputation betwixt the Catholicks and Donatiſts at Carthage, and by the ſame Edict ordained one to preſide in the diſputati­on, who was called a Judge. So did the EmperouraaSleyd. Com. l. 16. p. 353. Charles in the Conference at Ratisbone. In that at Poyſie in France be­twixt Beza and the Popiſh party: Beza and thoſe of hisbbHiſt. of the Councel of Trent. l. 5. p. 451. ſide deſired, that the King and his Councel would be preſent to govern the action, with eſpecial exception againſt the Clergy, that none of them might preſide, becauſe they were their profeſſed adverſaries; and ſome of them unwilling that the Proteſtants ſhould be gratified in that requeſt, would have perſwaded the Queen Mother to keep her ſon King Charles away, leſt being young, he ſhould be led away by the plauſibility of error. So in the concertation at Fountain­bleau, betwixt the Lord Morney and the Biſhop of Eureux, King Henry the Fourth was prſent and Preſident the firſt day, yet appointed he Commiſſioners, becauſe himſelfe would not be engaged to attend the debate until it were ended; though he did ſo, becauſe it brake off after one day by the ſickneſs of the Lord Morney, as hath been ſaid before. In the publick Diſpu­tations at Oxford and Cambridg, betwixt the Proteſtants and Pa­piſts, in King Edward the ſixths time, certain Commiſſioners were ſent in the name ofccFox Martyr. vol. 2. p. 756. col. 2. & 760. col. 2. Viſitors, to the number of five to each Univerſity, to overſee the Diſputation orderly carried on, and to make report of it to His Majeſty. In the three dayes conference at Hampton Court, King James himſelf was Preſi­dent, and it was well he was ſo, elſe ſome of the Prelates would have ſoon put to ſilence Doctor Reynolds and his aſſiſtants; for when that Reverend, Religious and Learned Doctor did but modeſtly obſerve addThe ſecond dayes confe­rence at Ham­pton Court. p. 25. Contradiction in the Service Book about Confirmation, one place confeſſing it was a depraved imitation of the Apoſtles, another grounding it upon their example, Act. 8.9.66 and thereupon deſired that the contradictions might be conſidered, and the ground of conformation examined: the Biſhop of London cut him off, and kneeling down, moſt humbly deſired His Ma­jeſty that the ancient Canon might be remembred, which ſaith, Schiſmatici contra Epiſcopos non ſunt and endi: was there any thing in the Doctors ſpeech which deſerved ſo ſharp a cenſure, as that for that he ſhould be called a ſchiſmatick, & ſuch a ſchiſ­matick as might not be ſuffered to ſpeak, becauſe that which he ſpeaks both piouſly and prudently, is ſaid by a pettiſh Prelate to be ſpoken againſt the Biſhops? But had he not cauſe to be much moved? the partial Pen-man of that Conference will tell you he had: foreeIbid. ſome of theſe men (ſaith he) the evening before, and the ſame morning had made a ſemblance of joyning with the Biſhops, and that they ſought for nothing but unity; but now they ſtrook at their overthrow (if they could) all at once. Epiſco­pacy, or rather Prelacy, ſurely is like the Apples of Sodom, if ſuch a tender touch of the Doctor would overthrow all at once: But the Doctor and thoſe of his mind, though as peace­ably minded as any, ſhould have been overthrown at once, if the King (who acted the office of a Moderator) had not been more moderate, and given ſome check to the Biſhops choler,ffPag. 28. telling him, he ſhould have ſuffered the Doctor to have taken his courſe and liberty; concluding, that there is no order, nor can be any effectual iſſue of disputation, if each party might not be ſuffer­ed without chopping, to ſpeak at large what he would; and there­fore willed, that either the Doctor ſhould proceed, or that the Bi­ſhop would frame his anſwer to the motions already made. And this is the proper work of a Preſident, or Moderator at a Diſputa­tion or Conference.

Sometimes the power which doth authorize the Diſpute, lea­veth liberty to the Diſputants, by conſent, to chuſe their Preſi­dent or Moderator; So did Sigiſmond King of Poland to the Trinitarians and Antitrinitarians for their Diſputation at Pe­tricovia,ggAntho. Poſſ. Biblioth. Sele. Tom. 1. l. 8. c. 13. p. 363. who after ſome debate, reſolved that the Preſident ſhould be choſen by turns one out of each party.

I will give you but one Obſervation more concerning this matter; and it is that memorable one betwixt Ambroſe Biſhop of Millain, and Auxentius and Arian Biſhop; the67 Arian challenged the Orthodox Biſhop to diſpute, procured the Authority of the Emperor Valentinian (a Child not yet bap­tized) by the favour of the Empreſs Juſtina an Arian, for his ſummons to appear in the Emperors Court or Conſiſtory, ſig­nifying that certain learned Jewes and Pagans were choſen as Judges on Auxentius part, and allowing him to make choice of his Judges. Ambroſe from ſuch premiſes expecting no good concluſion, refuſed to anſwer either the challenge of the A­rian, or charge of the Emperor; andhhAmbroſe Ep. 32. l 5. Tom. 3. p. 121, &c. makes his Apology to the Emperor with a modeſt boldneſs, giving him all reverenti­al and dutiful terms, yet freely without fear, pleading with him the right of his cauſe.

3. The next particular is the Perſons requiſite for the order­ing of a Diſpute, are Notaries, who have aniiNotariorum arserat, ut quae dicebantur notatis qui­buſdam exci­perent tanta celeritate, ut non dictantis tantùm ſed lo­quentis vocem aſſequerentur, unde Graecis〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉dicuntur. Eraſm. in vita Origen. fol. 3. p. 1. art of ſhort and ſwift writing, to ſet down what is ſpoken in diſputation, when it is ſpoken. This was the manner of publick diſputations be­forekEpiph. contra Photinianos Haereſ. 71. l. 3. Tom. 1. p. 197. col. 1. Epiphanius his time, as he ſheweth by example; and ſo it was in the diſputation betwixt the Catholicks and Donatiſts, whereinlApertis nota­riotum tabulis diſputatio coepta eſt Poſſidon. in vita Aug. c. 6. Auguſtine had to do; and in his diſputation withmAug. de actis cum Foelice Manich. fine lib. 1. Tom. 6. p. 633. Foelix the Manichean, there were Notaries on both ſides.

In later times the like hath been obſerved, as in the contro­verſie at Petricovia in Poland, that we may be ſure it was waged betwixt Papiſts and Arrians:nnAnthon. Poſ­ſev. Biblioth. Select. videat lit. c. Poſſevine relateth, the Scribe or Notary was a noble perſonage, who had written againſt Calvin. In the conference at Ratisbone, betwixt the Proteſtants and Papiſts, the Proteſtants moved, that what paſſed in the conference may beooProteſtan­tes, qui vide­rent quibuſcū adverſariis eſ­ſent commiſſi, collocutionem omnem & acta deſcribi pe­tunt. Sleyd. comment. l. 16. p. 353. ſet down by Notaries: and at that in Poyſie it was one of the conditions of the Colloquie propounded by Beza and his aſſociates,pHiſt. of the Councel of Trent, l. 5. p. 451. that there ſhould be Notaries cho­ſen by both parties: ſo was Mr. Aleſbury choſen to write the Conference or Diſpute betwixt Doctor Featley andqSee the Romiſh Fiſher caught and held in his own Net. part 1. p. 46. Fiſher. The office of a Notary is faithfully, and without partiality, to68 write what paſſeth betwixt the adverſe parties. Againſt a falſe Notary the Emperor Alexander Severus was ſo ſevere, that herrNotarium in­ciſis digitorum nervis, ut nun­quam ſcribere poſſet. Bucolz. Index Chron. ad An. 223. p. 171. cauſed his fingers to be cut off, ſo that he could never write after. Mr. Fiſher the Jeſuite, I believe, had not read that ſto­ry, when he thruſt himſelf into a Notaries office, at a Diſpute betwixt Dr. Featley and Mr. Musket, andſſRomiſh Fiſh­er, &c. p. 37. falſified that office. Some that mean not well have no mind of Notaries,ttPaſcentius verba ſua ex­cerpi noluit. Aug. Epiſt. 174 Tom. 2. p. 901. as Pa­ſcentius the Arrian, Auguſtines Adverſary, who would not yield to have his tongue followed by the Notaries pen; the Po­piſh party liked not the motion of the Proteſtants for Notaries in the Conference at Ratisbone, alledging it would draw out the debate too long, if that might be an exception, then it can­not well be ſo, at leaſt not ſo well: now in our more expert age, wherein there are many, who by Brachygraphy, can write as faſt as moſt men ordinarily ſpeak. uuPoſsidon. in vita, Aug. c. 17.The want of No­taries in a private Diſpute betwixt Augustine and Paſcentius, gave him occaſion and encouragement to brag that he had the better of it, and put Auguſtine to make a confutation of that falſhood, by their teſtimonies who were preſent at it. From the ſame cauſe was it, that Dr. Fr. White was repreſented ſo ſilly a Diſputant with Fiſher, as if he had been a School-boy of thirteen years old; for hewwDoctor Fr. White his reply to Jeſuite Fiſh. anſw. Pre. p. 9. princ. & fine. confeſſeth there was not a word written at that time, when he and his Adverſaries diſpu­ted together.

The fourth ſort of perſons convenient to be preſent at a Di­ſpute of Religion are ſuch, as for their integrity and diſcretion, are worthy to be witneſſes of what paſſeth in Diſpute. Such are not ſuperfluous (beſides the Notaries) to atteſt the tranſ­action of every dayes diſpute, and the whole at the laſt: and ſuch hadxxPoſsid. vide lit. q. Auguſtin in his private diſpute with Paſcentius, though without Notaries. And by ſuch was the cauſe and credit of the Proteſtant Religion, and the Champion for it Doctor Featly, righted againſt the fictions and falſhoods of Fiſher and his par­ty, concerning the cloſe of their conference, which in truth was thus; Fiſher refuſing to anſwer to Christ and his Apoſtles, the Proteſtant party preſent called off, or rather pulled off the opponent Doctor Featly; ſo the conference brake up: and this is atteſtedyyThe Romiſh Fiſher, &c. par. 1. p. 45, 46. by the ſubſcription of two Earls, two Knights, three Eſquires,69 one Doctor, two Batchelors in Divinity, beſides the Notaries cho­ſen by both parties.

Fourthly, For other Auditors, it were to be wiſhed that none were admitted, but ſuch as in ſome competent meaſure are able to judge, and are not weaklings in the Faith, ſince the Apoſtle ſaith, him that is weak in the Faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations, Rom. 14.1. But it cannot be that (as it was at the conference at Ratisbone and Hampton Court) the hearers ſhould be alwayes only ſuch as are particularly called, or admitted: and we find examples of promiſcuous admiſſion of all perſons, both in ancient and in latter times; for the former we have an inſtance in Auguſtines time, when at his diſputation with a Ma­nichean DoctorzzConvene­runt in unum, concurrenti­buſqueplurimis viris ſtudioſis turbiſquecuri­oſis. Poſsidon, de vita Aug. p. 6. there came together not only many ſtudious men, but the curious multitude: and when Gregentius diſputed with Herbanus the learned Jew, theaa〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Biblioth. veterum patrū Graeco Lat. Tom. 1. p. 194. whole City came thron­ging together to hear. The diſputations of latter times eſpecially, ſince thoſe errors which heretofore uſed for fear or ſhame to ſneke into corners, have got the impudence to give affront to Preachers in the Pulpit, and their maintainers to challenge them to diſpute; a kind of neceſsity hath been put upon ſome to con­teſt for the truth in the moſt publick Audiences and Aſſemblies of the people. Thus much for the perſons conſiderable in and about diſputations of Religion.

Our next obſervations muſt be ſet upon Rules and Lawes, whereby diſputations muſt be regulated in order to an happy iſſue and ſucceſs.

Firſt then, According to the religious Aphoriſm ofbb〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 1. Tom. 1. p. 1. Na­zianzen, the work muſt begin with God, and end with God by prayers and praiſes, for he is the father of Lights, James 5.7. and can make dark things clear; and when he ſets a light before men, he can open their eyes to ſee it, and bind their hearts to embrace it.

Secondly, Whatſoever point or Doctrine we bring to diſcuſ­ſion, we muſt make Gods word the authentick rule of tryal, re­ceiving nothing as matter of Faith Fundamental to Salvation, but what is in expreſs terms contained in it, or by juſt conſe­quence deduced from it.

Thirdly, The matter in queſtion muſt be truely and clearly70 ſtated and agreed upon before the diſputation begin, elſe it may be**See the ex­plication of the proverb, c. 4. lit. w. Andabatarum pugna, a blind buffeting of the Diſputants betwixt themſelves, or a beating of the air, as the Apoſtle phra­ſeth it. ttAlternis vi­cibus conten­tioſo fune u­terque diem in veſperam tra­xerunt, nubulo quodam veri­tas obumbra­batur. Tertull. adverſ. Judaeos c. 1. princ. cap. Tom. 1. p. 198.Tertullian in the beginning of his book againſt the Jewes, obſerves ſuch a diſputation betwixt a Chriſtian and a Jewiſh Proſelyte, who drew out the day as by a cord of conten­tion until night; in the mean time the truth was overſhadowed by a cloud, which was to be cleared up by determining theddSummum quaeſtionis ip­ſius certis li­neis determi­nemus, Ibid. c. 2. p. 19: ſumme of the Queſtion, within certain lines or limits of reſo­lution for the ſtate of it, as he ſpeaketh afterwards. If this be not firſt done, nothing in the diſpute can be well done, no orderly proceeding can be made in the way, but a wild wander­ing out of the way; which might juſtly have moved your Ad­verſary Mr. O. in ſober ſadneſs (without any jeering) to con­feſs that he was miſerably overſeen, yea, in the underſtanding of that very queſtion upon which he diſputed, until he came to page 113. of his Examination of your Reply, which in all con­taineth but 130.

Fourthly, That the Diſputation be not drawn out by Rhe­torical Exſpatiations (as the Jeſuite Cotton was uſed to do, who was, aseePetrus Cotto­nus Rhetori­cus jactantior quàm dialecti­cus acutior. Daniel. Cham. Praefat. ad 2. par. Epiſt. Je­ſuit. Chamier ſaith of him, rather a braving Rhetorician then an arguing Logician) but rather contracted by Logical Ar­gumentation. Some have no mind of Logical Diſputes, becauſe there are others who uſe Sophiſtry, or fallacious Concluſions, whichffContorta Sophiſmata, ſic enim ap­p. Hantur fal­laces concluſi­unculae. Cicer. Acad. quaeſt. Edit. 1. l. 2. num. 67. Cicero calleth writhed and pricking Sophiſmes, for Lo­gick; and which Seneca gravely derideth,ggNon debuit hoc nobis eſſe propoſitum argutè diſſerere, & Philoſophiam in has anguſtias ex ſua majeſtate detrahere, nequequicquam aliud iſtae diſputationes ſunt quàm inter ſe peritè captantium luſus. Senec. Epiſt 48. p. 464. Edit. Lipſian. as a degrading of Philoſophy from the latitude of her Majeſty into ſtreights; and meer plays or triflings betwixt ſuch as are cunningly captious: and when Doctor Featley required of his Antagoniſt M. Fiſher, that both the opponent and reſpondent ſhould be tyed to Logical form: Fiſher anſwered, that he did not hold that fit, becauſe the company underſtands not Logick form; to which the Doctor anſwe­red, there are of the company that underſtand Logick as well as you or I, the reſt are men of understanding and reaſon; and I am reſolved to keep Logick form, and expect from you direct anſwers:hhRomiſh Fiſher, E. c. 1.1. par. p. 8.71 and well he might, for Logick is nothing but Reaſon brought into Rule; wherewith by the light of Nature many are well en­dowed, though they have not the art of Logick: but it ſeems they meant a ſtrict Form of Logick by Syllogiſmes,iiIbid. though the Question of the viſibility of the Church in all ages (which they had in debate) required, as the Doctor told the Jeſuite, rather a large Hiſtorical volume, then a brief Syllogiſtical Diſpute: and for Lo­gick, I know not how any diſpute can be well ordered without it; ſince, askkAug. Tom. 1. p. 375. Dialectica ni­hil aliud do­cet quàm con­ſequentia de­monſtrare, ſeu vera veris, ſeu falſa falſis, Aug. contr. Creſcon. Grammat. l. 1. c. 20. Tom. 7. par. 1 p. 261. Auguſtine ſaith, it teacheth nothing elſe but to de­monſtrate conſequences true or falſe, from true or falſe principles;lNunquam doctrina Chriſtiana dialecticam formidat; ſicut eam in Stoicis non reformi dabat Apoſt. quos ſecum volentes conferre non reſpuit. Ibid. which Christian Doctrine (ſaith he) is never afraid of; as the Apoſtle Paul did not fear it in the Stoiks, whom he did not re­fuſe, when they were willing to confer with him.

But for Logickly ſtrict Form of Syllogiſme throughout the diſputation, it cannot well be obſerved, much leſs is it of ne­ceſsity to be required; and indeed it was very ſeldom practi­ſed by the Ancients; yea, that great Diſputant, Auguſtine him­ſelf, though he have not only written ammAug. Tom. 1. operum p. 375. Treatiſe of Logick, but annnAug. contra Creſcon. Grā­mat. l. 1. ubi ſupra. Apology for Logick, putteth very few of his Rea­ſonings into Syllogiſtical Form. And when they Syllogize, ſome of the ſhew themſelves no very good Artiſts at it, as we may ſee by Gregory Nyſſens ten Syllogiſmes againſt the Manichean Hereticks: and for latter times,ooGreg. Nyſſent Tom. 3. p. 180. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. though ſome diſputations have been carried on by a Series of many Syllogiſmes artifici­ally concluded in Mood and Figure,ppFox. Martyr. vol. 2. p. 757, 758, 759, 760. as that of Peter Martyr a­gainſt Doctor Treſham, Chadſey, and Morgan before the Kings Viſitors at Oxford, Ann. 1549. ordinarily they have paſſed by Alternation and Reciprocation of Reaſons and Exceptions, without forming of Syllogiſmes in Mood and Figure, and have not been the leſs profitable and ſucceſsful; as we ſee in that excellent Debate or Diſpute, called a Conference betwixt Do­ctor Reynolds and the Jeſuite Hart.

Fifthly, That there be allowed an equall viciſsitude for ob­jecting and anſwering without interruption; and that none interpoſe, or take upon them to be Diſputants, but thoſe that72 were agreed upon before the diſputation began: the care of theſe cautions belongeth eſpecially to the Moderators or Pre­ſidents office, as King James his example ſheweth in the confe­rence at Hampton Court, by reproving the Biſhop of London for interrupting Doctor Reynolds, as hath been brought in al­ready, though to another purpoſe.

Sixthly, When there is an Intermiſsion, or end of the diſpu­tition, Firſt, the Notaries writings are to be compared, and if they differ, to be reconciled.

Secondly, The Diſputants are to have liberty to reviſe their own Reaſons, Objections, and Solutions, and to correct them by altering, adding, or expunging, ſo as may make for the a­mendment of their own Arguments and Anſwers. This liberty Dr. Reynolds and Mr. Hart allowed one another.

Thirdly, When each ſide is ſatisfied, and that their opini­ons and pleadings are ſet down as they would have them, then the Parties, Notaries, and Witneſſes hands are to be ſubſcribed to them.

Seventhly, Sometimes ſecrecy is required upon oath, that nothing be revealed to any one abſent from the conference, un­til a certain time;qqSleyd. Com­ment. l. 16. p. 534. as when the Emperor impoſed this con­dition on the conference at Ratisbone, viz. that nothing ſhould be communicated to any one not preſent, before the Emperor and Princes of the Empire were made acquainted with all the tranſactions under the hands of the Notaries; which the Pro­teſtant party could not yield unto, becauſe their Princes requi­red an account of their proceedings of the Colloquie from time to time: this occaſioned the breaking up the conference abrupt­ly without fruit, but not without mutual offence on both ſides.

There be ſome other Rules which might have augmented the number, if I ſhould have counted on with them; but I have virtually premiſed thm already in the qualifications of the Diſputants: I ſhall add no more but only this advice, that the diſpute, according to the admonition of**Nazianz. Tom. 1. orat. 1. p. 1. Nazianzen, begin and end like the eighth Pſalm, with glory to God. If Colloquies, Conferences, and Diſputations of matters of Religion were thus begun, continued and concluded, the truth would be not73 onely militant againſt, but triumphant over rebellious errour, which preſumes to affront it, and ſometimes to challenge it in­to the field, and over reproachful rumour which dogs it with barking obloquie afterwards; and ſo there would be no need of playing an after game with the Adverſary, as now there is with yours, of whom, with what he hath written againſt you, I ſhall in that which followeth, according to your requeſt, give you a reaſon of my former advice, not to honour him any more by taking him for your Antagoniſt; and ſo from Diſputations in general, I ſhall paſs to your Diſputation with Mr. O. in par­ticular.

CHAP. VII. Of the Diſputation at Kenelmworth, betwixt John Brian Doctor in Divinity, Miniſter at Coventry, and John Onley Paſtor of a Church at Lawford (as he ſtyles him­ſelf.) How it was occaſioned, undertaken, and conti­nued at divers monthly meetings there.

THe occaſion of the Diſputation (as it is related in Doctor Brians Letter to me, and in both his and Mr. Onley's Epi­ſtles printed with, and prefixed before the printed Diſputation) was this; When the Lecture at Kenelmworth, at the Monday monthly meeting there was agreed upon by many Miniſters, and begun Decem. 1. 1655. for the ſetting up, and ſetling of a Go­ſpel-order in Parochial Congregations. Doctor Brian, who took the firſt turn in it, held it on himſelfe the ſpace of ſix months together; the Text he treated on was Coloſ. 2.5. Though I babſent in the fleſh, yet am I with you in the ſpirit, joy­ing and beholding your order, and the ſtedfaſtneſs of your faith in Chriſt. In my ſecond Sermon (ſaith he) I deſired any that ſhould hearme, or hear what I delivered touching the way of reforming74 our Parochial Church's, which we reſolved on, if they doubted of the truth of any thing, they would ſignifie their doubts or ſcruples in writing, and I would endeavour to ſatisfie them. Accordingly a godly Brother of the Congregational way (Lieutenant Fox by name) ſent in ſundry objections to the Doctors third diſ­courſe upon that Text, and ſome letters paſſed betwixt them, whereof he (i.e. Mr. Fox) deſired not any publication (though for parts and piety he is judged no way inferiour to Mr. Onley) but he, viz. Mr. O. the next day openly declared his diſſent, and deſired to diſpute with the Doctor publickly upon theſe two Queſtions.

Firſt, Whether the Pariſh Aſſemblies of England generally be true viſible Churches; which Mr. O. denied.

Secondly, Whether every Brother, though no Elder, that hath received abilities from God (whereby he is enabled to preach) may publickly preach; which he affirmed; appointing me, ſaith Do­ctor Brian, to be Opponent in the firſt, and Reſpondent in the ſecond queſtion the next monthly day.

It would have ſignified ſome modeſty in Mr. O. not to have appoynted Dr. Br. but to have the turns of diſpute as he would appoint them.

I need not tell you (ſaith the Doctor) how many diſſwaſions I had from entring the lists with an illiterate Adverſary, as Mr. O. was taken for by many: among others this that in ſo doing, I ſhould diſparage my ſelfe, nor was there any probability of good to come of it; which it had been well, if he had heeded ſo far, as to re­fuſe not ſo much the diſpute it ſelf, as to undertake it with ſuch an unequal oppoſite. But he argued himſelf into an acceptance of the challenge, out of ſome reaſons of piety, charity, and humility, which (as event hath proved) were miſapplyed to Mr. O. and that rather by his injurious miſdoing, then by the Doctors imprudent miſtaking. Beſides he had an inducement to adventure ſome inconveniencies by the diſpute (while but doubtful) from the experience of his conteſtation with two A­nabaptiſts of London, Mr. Knowles and Mr. Kaffen, who came from thence to Coventry, with a great deal of confidence to confront Dr. Brian, and his worthy Brother Dr. Grewe in a publick diſputation: for which purpoſe, though the Magiſtrates75 of the City, and at their requeſt, promiſed to lend the Town-Hall (upon the boyſterous misbehaviour both of themſelves, and of many of their followers, on the Sabbath day before the diſputation (who flocked in great numbers thither, to counte­nance and encourage their Champions) they recalled their con­ceſsion, & for the ſame cauſe the Committee of Parliament reſi­ding there, for bade the diſpute. The 2. Doctors notwithſtanding were neceſſitated ſomewhat to Symbolize with the Anabaptiſts, viz. ſo far as to a non-obedience of their Governours therein, & that rather in hope of their pardon, then in contempt of their power; becauſe the Anabaptiſts imputed theſe prohibitions, not ſo much to the prudence of the Magiſtrates, as to the diffi­dence of the Doctors to undertake the defence of their profeſ­ſed judgment and practice: and this ſiniſter ſuggeſtion ſo far ſwayed with ſome religious perſons, that they inclined to make a Schiſme from the Church, if theſe far-fetched Fencers ſhould find none to take up the Sword and Buckler againſt them. For prevention of which ſcandal, they were publickly encountred, the truth ſo ſtrenuouſly aſſerted, and they ſo ful­ly confuted (in a very numerous Auditory) that ſuch as before were wavering, and in a manner tottering towards a revolt (if they ſhould have had cauſe to glory, that they put off their harneſs, becauſe none durſt put on any to combat with them) were throughly ſatisfied, and firmly ſetled and eſtabliſhed in the truth. The like bravadoes Doctor Brian might expect from his Thraſonical challenger, if he had not been underta­ken, and his factious adherents would have triumphantly tra­duced him, that he durſt not commit his cauſe to ſuch a publick trial, and ſo they might have gained a great advantage, which might have confirmed his fellow-Sectaries, and diſſetled the ſim­ple, too much addicted to liſten after novel fancies, and to like them too well. Beſides, he might have good hope alſo that the ſucceſs of a diſputation at Kentlmworth would be ſuch, as there was of that at Coventry. And ſo the day prefixed to begin the diſputation being come, nine Arguments were brought by the Doctor, in vindication of the Affirmative in the firſt Queſtion; and when half the time was ſpent in debate of the two firſt, Mr. O. (as himſelfe ſaith) moved for the reſt of the time to oppoſe76 in the ſecond queſtion, which was granted only with a motion of reading the other ſeven in the Congregation: whereto Mr. O conſented, deſiring a copy of the Arguments undiſputed of, to return an anſwer to be likewiſe publickly read the next mee­ting, which was Monday month after; according to which, Mr. O. drew up, as he ſaith, a Reply, and read it in the Con­gregation.

CAAP. VIII. Of the printing of the Diſputation. By whoſe motion it was made. By whom, and how managed.

IMmediately after what Mr. O. had drawn up was read, a Gentleman then preſent, deſired that the Diſputation might be printed, and deſired Mr. O. to move it to the Do­ctor, which he did; whereto he replied, if he might reply he was willing: but ſaid withal, that he had twelve Arguments more in proof of the queſtion: to which I replyed (ſaith Mr. O.) I was contented he ſhould reply to mine anſwer to the nine firſt without any rejoynder, provided I might anſwer to the twelve laſt without his reply, onely till they were printed; and then each ſhould be at liberty to write what he pleaſed. To this motion of printing the Doctor yielded in the cloſe of the third or fourth dayes diſputation. viz. that Mr. O. his Argu­ments, Anſwers, Replyes, and Rejoynders might be put in print, and (for his proviſo) Doctor Brian gave him liberty to oppoſe what he pleaſed, and take in alſo the help of Mr. Marley, and thoſe other ſeven who aſſiſted him in diſputation, that the ut­moſt he and they could object further againſt our Pariſh Chur­ches, might come under one view: and withal, the Doctor wiſh­ed him to forbear in ſtead of arguing, to make any more excurſions by tedious and impertinent declamations againſt our Miniſters and77 Members, wherein all your anſwers (ſaith he to Mr. O.) for the moſt part ſpend themſelves. So in the Epiſtle of Doctor Brian to Mr. O. I have related the more out of both their printed Teſtimonies, touching the diſputation and impreſsion of it, becauſe the printed book is very hard to come by, though Mr. O. ſaith it was publiſhed with both their conſents, which may be very much doubted of for divers reaſons. For,

Firſt, there were no publick Notaries and Witneſſes, to write and atteſt what paſſed in diſpute betwixt them.

Secondly, Though there were copies taken of the diſpute, the chief pen-man of the whole was Mr. O. who(a)(a)In the Diſ­putat. p. 46. confeſſith, by reaſon of a mighty crowd of people he could hardly breathe, or write one perfect ſentence of Doctor Brians Sermon: and there might be as much difficulty in taking by his pen other Dictates deli­vered by word. The crowd it is like was very great, for Dr. Brian ſpeaking of ſeven which took Mr. O. his part in the diſ­putation, who were Antipedobaptists; he in his anſwer ſaith,bbJ. O. in his Exam. of the Doctors Re­ply. p. 23, 24. he believeth there was ſeven times ſeven thrice told that took his part, that is 149. and I believe for one ſuch a one, there was 20. at leaſt of a contrary judgement.

Thirdly, But if there were a perfect copy of the Diſpute made up by the Doctor and him, that copy was committed to Mr. O. his hand to be promoted to the Preſs, and no copy kept, whereby it might be known to be truely printed: ſuch was the Doctors candid and ſuſpectleſs dealing with his adverſary, which laid a great engagement upon him, of fair and ingenuous cor­reſpondence with him again.

Fourthly, When the book was printed, he ſhould have ſent the Doctor a copy of it, before he had printed his Letter of conſent unto it, that he might allow or diſallow it, as he ſhould ſee cauſe.

Fifthly, Mr. O. having the Manuſcript in his own hands, might have altered his own part for the better, the Doctors for the worſe at his pleaſure. And that he had a mind to magnifie himſelf, and diſgrace the Doctor all he could, is plain, both by the book of the diſputation, and by his latter book of the Ex­amination of the Doctors Reply. For the former, it may appear to any indifferent Reader, that for a good part of the Book,78 from the beginning (wherin Doctor Brian is Opponent) he ex­preſſeth the promptneſs of a ready Text-man, and the acumen of a Polemick School-man, as his aſſiduous and unceſſant (yet very powerful) preaching, ſheweth him an excellent Pulpit­man: But in the relation of the latter part of the Book Mr. O. ſo enervateth the vigour of his diſcourſe, as if he had ſuf­fered a failing of his faculties, as Sampſon did when his locks were ſhorn. And this he did that he might have more hope to appear a conqueror in the conflict. To which end he contract­eth the Doctors Speeches, and enlargeth his own after what ſize he pleaſeth: ſo that he neither doth, nor can acknowledg he hath done him right in the printed Edition of that diſputati­on. And who that knoweth his eminent abilities for quickneſs of conceit, ſoundneſs of judgement, and livelineſs of ſpirit, and volubility of ſpeech, can imagine that he would ſuffer Mr. O. to enlarge his anſwer to his ninth Argument, of leſs then four lines, to well towards forty; and in that anſwer to ſum up the Diſpute into a Triumphant Compendium for his own reputati­on, and the Doctors reproach, without one word of Reply for himſelf or his cauſe? As in this printed diſputation he hath done him little right, ſo in the other Book he hath done him a great deal of wrong, for not being contented to magnifie his own performance, with a maſterſhip in the Diſpute, as him­ſelf ſets it forth (when it had been honour enough for him, in that Doctor Brian accepted of him for his Antagoniſt, though he had ſubmitted to him as his convert) he publiſhed another Book as an examination of the Doctors Reply; wherein he took a great deal more liberty to traduce him. But that which I will obſerve at preſent, is his unworthy dealing with the Do­ctor, in the publication of thoſe two Books: for becauſe he could not for ſhame but publiſh ſomething in the diſpute, which might appear anſwerable to Dr. Brians deſerved eſtimation (for otherwiſe hundreds would have accuſed him as a falſary) that book of the diſpute was rather ſuppreſſed, then common­ly ſold; for ſo ſoon as I heard that it was to be printed, I wrote to my Stationer for it, and remembred him of it with much importunity many times for many weeeks and months together, to procure one for me; and though he uſed his beſt endeavour79 and diligence to that purpoſe, he ſtill returned a non est inven­tus for that book: but ſo ſoon as I heard of Mr. O. his ſecond book, and ſent for it, I received it by the firſt return of the Carrier afterward: the readieſt reaſon of which difference I conceive to be this, Mr. O. his falſhood in the former Book, might more eaſily be diſcovered then in the latter; and his honour to the Doctors diſhonour in the later was more ſet forth, then in the former. In the publication whereof, beſides the offenſive Contents of it, he gavDoctor Brian cauſe of complaint, in that this later Book againſt him (much more a­gainſt him then the former, becauſe it was much more contu­melious and inſolent) had been abroad a long time, before he had any notice thereof. Truely whatſoever Mr. O. thinketh of his own omiſſion herein (and it may be his deſire was, that he of all men ſhould never have ſeen it) I could not but take it for a part of ingenuity and juſtice (when my caſe was like his) to give as timely intelligence as I could, of what I had publiſhed againſt his Friend mine Adverſary Mr. S. by leaving one of my Books with his Stationer G. C. ſo ſoon as it came from the Preſs, to be ſent to him with ſpeed: and ſo I dealt with Do­ctor H. for (having received ſome copies of my firſt Book a­gainſt him, firſt of all upon Friday night) I ſent my ſervant with one to him the next Saturday following.

80

CHAP. IX. Of Mr. Onley his Quality and Condition, his Wit and Utterance, his Ignorance and Arrogancy, his reprochful ſpeaking of ſuch as are not of his Sect, and partiality to himſelfe and them, his carping at the Magiſtrates for medling with matters of Religion, and countenan­cing of Miniſters.

I Shall ſay little of the man, but what I find publiſhed to the world by his own Pen, and if that have betrayed him to the condemning cenſure of pious and judicious Readers, he muſt blame himſelf, not me, who have no exception againſt his per­ſon. I confeſs he once maketh mention of me,ccIn the Ex­amof Dr. Bri­ans Reply. p. 32. as of an Ad­verſary, but diſmiſſeth me without any incivility at all. And I am ſo far from detracting from any commendation due unto him, that I ſhall not fear the ſharp Criticiſme of Baronius con­cerning Onuphrius, which was,ddAventinum infectum Hae­reſis ſcabie be­ſtiam indigne nimis Onu­phrius homo Catholicus pectine ſcalpit eburneo, dum eum praedicat virum eſſe diſertum. Baron. Annal. Tom. 10. Anno 996. col. 496. that he being a Catholick, did too unworthily claw a beaſt infected with a ſcab of Hereſie, with an Ivory comb, when he commended Aventine for an eloquent man; I ſhould not, I ſay, fear ſuch a cenſure.

Though for the two firſt particulars, as ſome have repreſen­ted him to me, I ſhould ſay of him, as Auguſtine did ofeeTychonius Donatiſta ho­mo quidem a­cri ingenio & ubere eloquio praeditus. Aug. l. 1. contr. Ep. Parmen. c. 1. Tom. 7. par. 1. p. 9. Ty­chonius the Donatiſt, that he is a man endowed with a ſharp wit, and copious utterance; and that made him more able, and more willing to wrangle with the Doctor, and to his partial adhe­rents to ſeem victorious, when in the judgement of the moſt judicious and equal hearers, he was vanquiſhed, as ſome of them have told me; and I conceive I have the more cauſe to believe it, becauſe in whatſoever he moſt excelled the Doctor, was far81 above him, being eminently endowed with all kind of learning: wherein to ſpeak to the third particular [Mr. O. his Ignorance] he was very deficient, though he bring in now and then a few words of Hebrew, Greek and Latine, that an illiterate Reader may take him for a learned man. And if he had been ſuch a one indeed, he would not have brought in Hiſtorical reports of matters of importance done many hundred years before he was born, without quoting ſome Author of account; as for that offfMr. O. his Exam. of Dr. Br. Reply. p. 7. Paphnutius, who though but one man, prevailed for the li­berty of marriage of Clergy-men, againſt a General Councel; for which he ſhould (and no doubt would, if he had been verſed in venerable Antiquity) have citedggConcil. Nice. prim. Tom. 1. Counc. p. 423. col. 1. edit. Bin. 1636. the Councel of Nice, orhhSocr. Scholaſt. li 1. c. 8. Niceph. Eccleſ. Hiſt. l. 8. c. 18, 19. So­crates Scholaſticus, or Nicephorus, or ſome other Hiſtoriographer of ſome of the precedent ages. In which ſtory, though he glory very much, and repeat it ſeveral times without proof, it makes as much for the credit of the Quakers, againſt his ſchiſmatical party, as for them againſt the more numerous company of re­gular Profeſſors of the Doctors way; for which purpoſe he produceth the ſingular example, but it bewrayes more igno­rance of Antiquity in that: for the firſt diviſion of Pariſhes by Honorius Biſhop of Canterbury,iiMr. O. in the Miſput. p. 14. he citeth a very late No­velliſt Mr. Saltmarſh, and by him learned Mr. Selden (in his Book De Decimis) an Epithet and Subject in learned Mr. Sel­den well matched, and as well in ignorant Mr. Saltmarſh and Mr. O. both, in this particular eſpecially; for the Book is not, as the Author entitles it, De Decimis, but the Hiſtory of Tithes: and in thatkkSeld. Hiſt. of Tythes. c. 9. paragr. 3. p. 256, 257, 258. Hiſtory he diſproves their opinion, who hold that Honcrius Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury divided his Province into Pariſhes, or Parochial Limits, ſuch as we have; for the word Pa­rochia in his age, may be taken rather for a Dioceſs, then for a diviſion of leſſer compaſs, as in later times; for in the Prelacy of his next ſucceſſor but one, whoſe name was Theodorus, An. 673 there was a Councel celebrated at Herudford, as Beda report­eth, whereof in the ſecond Canon it is ordained,llNullus E­piſ coporum Parochiam al­terius invadat, ſed contentus ſit gubernatione creditae ſibi plebis. Concil. Herudford: cui Praeſidebat Archiep. Theodor. can 2. apud Bed. Eccleſ. Hiſt. Gent. Anglor. l. 4. c. 5. p. 160. that no Bi­ſhop invade another Biſhops Pariſh, but that he be content with the government of the people committed to his charge. That which82 anſwereth to the extent of a Biſhops authority in the language of thoſe times, was not of ſo narrow a circumference as a Pa­ſtoral charge. The truth is, neither Mr. O. nor Mr. Selden, though an induſtrious Antiquary, could determine the Anti­quity of Parochial Diviſions. mmHnorius Archiepiſco­pus Cantuari­enſis circa an­num à ſalute reparata 636. Angliam pri­mus in Paro­chias, ut legi­tur in Hiſtoria Cantuarienſi, diſtribuere coe­pit. Camb. Brit. p 99. & 100. edit. 3.Cambden I confeſs aſſigned the Diviſion of Pariſhes in England to Honorius for the perſon, and to the year 636. for the time; but he gives too ſhort a note of it, to reſolve the doubts that are moved about it: and by that which next followeth, we may conceive he meaneth the diviſion into Dioceſſes or Biſhopricks, according to the Canon now cited. For mine own and others ſatisfaction I made a more ſerious ſearch into the queſtion, the reſult whereof I delivered in the ſixth Reaſon annexed to the petition to his Highneſs the Lord Protector, and to the High Court of Parliament, for the eſtabliſhment of Miniſters in ſequeſtered Benefices for their own lives.

Now if I may be allowed to plow with mine own Heyſer, though it were not known to be mine (the Book being publiſh­ed under the name of Pkilotheus Philomyſtes) I conceive it con­venient to repeat it here, not onely to diſcover the ignorance of Mr. O. and Mr. S. but to take off the edge of their confi­dence, when they cry out upon Parochial diviſions as of Anti­chriſtian inſtitutions: for the original of Parochial partitions DoctornnTooker of the Fab. of the Church and Church Li­vings. p. 44. Tooker andooHooker Ec­cleſ. Pol. l. 5. p. 333. Mr. Hooker refer it to Evariſtius Bi­ſhop of Rome, Anno 112. but neither quote any Author for it. They that do name the Book called the Pontificale of Dama­ſus, who was Biſhop of Rome about the year 367. but that (ſayppBaron. An­nal. Tom. 4. ad Ann. 384. num. 22. Baronius andqqPoſſev. Ap­par. Tom. 1. p. 410. Poſſevine) was not the Book of any Damaſus at all, but of Anaſtaſius Bibliothecarius, ſaithrBellarm. de Eccleſ. Scrip. p. 123. Bel­larmine; and whoſe Book ſoever it was, it is (for divers un­truths) diſapproved byſBaron. ubi ſupra. Baronius, andtBin. Tom 1. con. p. 61. col. 2. Binius: others re­fer the diſtinction to Dionyſius who was Biſhop of Rowe, Anno 261. asuBin. Ibid p. 121. col. 2. Binius accounts, butwBaron. Tom. 2. num. 17. Baronius reckons Anno 270. andxBaron. ubi ſupra. reports it rather as a Renovation in his time and by him, then a new inſtitution.

83

Obj. But if the diviſion be derived from a Biſhop of Rome, it is Popiſh, and by conſequence Antichriſtian alſo.

Anſw. Not ſo neither; for in the primitive times, when Chri­ſtianity was perſecuted,aaMr. Fox Martyr. vol. 1. p. 732. col. 2. 22 Biſhops of Rome for it were mar­tyred one after another, from the Apoſtles time downward, to the end of the third Century; and it will be no good manners neither in morality nor Chriſtianity to call them Antichriſtian, who laid down their lives for Chriſts ſake.

Obj. But they are called Popes, and is not that Popery which cometh from the Pope?

Anſw. The Title Pope ſignifieth Father, and anciently was not appropriated to the Biſhops of Rome, but communicated to Biſhops in common, asbbOnuph. in Bo­nif. 3. p. 81. col. 1. Onuphrius a learned Papiſt confeſ­ſeth: all Biſhops were called Popes, until Juſtinians time, ſaithccPamel. Cypr. p. 11. Pamelius, as Athanaſius Biſhop of Alexandria was called Pope byddEpiph. haereſ. Tom. 2. haereſ. 68. Epiphanius, ſo Heraclius byeeApud Euſeb. Eccleſ. Hiſt. l. 7. c. 6. Dionyſius Alexan­drinus, andffCypriano Pa­pae Moyſ. & maximus Ep. 26. p. 32. col. 1. edit. Pamel. Cyprian is often called Pope, yea by theggBenedict. Pa­pam Cyprian. ſic clerus Ro­man. ad clerum Carthag. Ep. 3. p. 10. col. 2. Cypr. Papae clerus Rom. Ep. 30. p. 55. col. 1. Cypriano Papae Presbyt. & Diacon. Romae. Ep. 31. p. 36. col. 2. & in fine Epiſt. optamus to beatiſſ. & glorioſiſſ. Papa. p. 38. Ibid. Cler­gy of Rome (albeit he were not Biſhop of Rome, but of Car­thage) and by a Pope (it was PopehSelden Spicil. ad Eadmerum. p. 205. ex Gervaſio Dorobernenſi. M.S. Ʋrban the ſecond) was our Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury called Pope of the other world, meaning, of the Iſland of great Britain, ſevered by the Sea from the world. Hierom, though (as hath been noted) he were re­ſpective enough of the reputation of the Roman Prelate, fami­liarly applyed that title to others as well as unto him, as toiHieron. ad Heliodor. Epitaph Nepotiani Tom. 1. p. 27. & Tom. 6. Proem. in Jonam propher. p. 123. Cromatius, tokkHieron. Apolog. adverſ. Ruffinum l. 2. Tom. 2. p. 225. ante medium. Epiphanius, tollHieron. Ep. ad Chromatiam Tom. 1. p. 216. circa med. Valerianus, tommHironym. ad Princip. Marcellae viduae Epitaph. Tom. 1. p. 119. prope initium. Atha­naſius, tonnIbid. Tom. 2. p. 311. Ep. Theophilo & p. 310. Ep. Pammach. & Marcello. Theophilus, toooIdem Tom. 5. p. 63. in Prolog. in 10. viſion. Eſa. Amabilis, toppIdem Tom. 4 p 64. de viro perfect. ſub nomine Heron. Ambroſe, toqqSymbol. Suffin. inter opera Hieron. Tom. 4. p. 129. lin. 1. Symbol. Hieron. Laurentius, torrTom. 2. p. 368. Ep. Auguſt. Alipius, and toſſIdem Tom. 2. p. 322, 351, 358, 368, &c. Auguſtine; none of which were Biſhops of Rome, but of other places.

84

Ob. But if Biſhops, it is enough to diſcredit all they do, for ſaith Mr. O. (and therein he bewrayeth his groſs ignorance a­gain)ttMr. O. in Diſ­pute. p. 30. the Devil ordained the Pope, the Pope the Biſhops, and the Biſhops you, to Doctor Brian; how can you be true Mini­ſters by him that was none himſelfe?

By that which hath been obſerved of the Title Pope, as in the ancient acception of it, the Devil no more ordained the Pope, then he did Biſhops.

For, Biſhops as Biſhops were ordained neither by the Pope nor by the Devil, but by the Holy Ghoſt, as we have it Act. 20.28, Take heed to your ſelves, and to all the flock, over which the holy Ghoſt hath made you〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Overſeers, the ſame word elſewhere is rendered Biſhops, Philip. 1.1. 1 Tim. 3.2. Tit. 1.7.

The Popes now adayes, and of long time ago, are made by Cardinals, and he makes them again, as Ice and Water pro­duce one another; but the Pope ſeldom makes Biſhops, but Biſhops make Biſhops, both accordinguuSo in the Canon of thoſe that are falſely called the Canons of the Apoſtles. Bin. Tom. 1. Can. 1. p. 16. Concil. Arelatenſ. Ann. 314. It was ordained there ſhould be Biſhops to conſecrate Biſhops, three at theeaſt. Arelat. Can. 21. Tom. 1. Concil. p. 267. col. 1. to Eccleſiaſtical con­ſtitution, conſtant cuſtom, and uſage of the Church.

If the Biſhops were Popiſh and Antichriſtian, it doth not follow, that all they do is Popiſh and Antichriſtian.

For firſt, Popes and Papiſts of all ſorts and ranks, doe ſome things as men, by the light of Reaſon, and inſtinct of natural conſcience, as Rom. 2.14, 15. So if Honorius did divide his Pro­vince of Canterbury into Pariſhes, as many hold he did (parti­cularly Godwin in hiswwGodwins Catalogue of Biſhops. p. 52. Catalogue of Biſhops) it was (as he ſaith) that he might appoint particular Miniſters to particular Congregations; a courſe ſo rational, that no man can juſtly take exception at it; for doth not common reaſon dictate the ſame for the ordering of all civil Societies, ſubdividing a Nation into Counties, Counties into Hundreds, Hundreds into Cities, Towns and Villages? and are they not governed by Judges, Juſtices, and Conſtables, High and Petty, and all limited within certain precincts, and divided according to the vicinity of their habitations, as the meaning of the word**〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉i.e. juxta habi­tare, to dwell nigh together: Paroecia intimateth; and ſo in ordering of Armies, Academies, Colledges and Schools. 85The courſe taken according to Reaſon, is to divide and ſubdi­vide into Companies and Claſſes, and to ſet Officers over them, ſo as may moſt conduce to the benefit of all: and if we ſhall re­nounce Reaſon, and act by Antipathies,Purch. Pilgr. . c. 1. we may perhaps be­come as wiſe as the Pagans in Pegu, who both men and women make their teeth black, becauſe dogs teeth are white; and they ſcorn to imitate a canine Candor.

Secondly, Some things they did as men ingenuouſly educated, and endowed with knowledge of Arts, and Tongues, and Hi­ſtonies, and ſo many who are in their Religion and Profeſſion Popiſh, have written divers excellent Books and Diſcourſes of all ſorts.

Thirdly, Some things they do as Chriſtians, aſſenting to the authority of Scriptures, and teaching and practiſing many things conſonant to the truth and tenour thereof, ſo many of them (even the moſt Antichriſtian as the Jeſuites) have written divers godly diſcourſes and commentaries upon many Books of the Bible, and ſome upon all, which are very conducible to the underſtanding of the Sacred Text.

Fourthly, Some things they dictate, and do as Antichriſtian, and in ſuch things only we are to depart from them; if the Devils believe there is one God, we may believe ſo too, and therein we do well, James 2.19. and if we ſhould not do ſo, wo ſhould be worſe then Devils; whatſoever is good, in whomſoe­ver, is from God; and it is more to be eſteemed in relation to him, then to be condemned in relation unto others, though they he never ſo wicked.

Fifthly, For the Biſhops that ordained our Presbyters, they ordained them as Presbyters, or Miniſters, for ſuch they were before they were Biſhops; and ſo being Presbyters or Mini­ſters, thoſe whom they ordained might well be true Presbyters and Miniſters alſo.

I will note but one thing more of his ignorance, and that is a probability that he cannot be learned, from his condition and courſe of life; for as one of his diſciples told Doctor Brian, and the Doctor wrote unto me in his Letter, March 6.16.56, He painfully follows Husbandry all the Week dayes, and preacheth to a congregation of Anabaptiſts and Ʋniverſaliſts on the Sabbath.

86

How he ſhould be Learned who ſpends the moſt of his time as a Husbannman, unleſs, as Amos an Herdſman at Tekoa, he were divinely inſpired, Amos 1.1. and cap. 17. ver. 14, 15. I cannot conceive: but if he be ſuch a man as he taketh upon him to be, we may in his Name give anſwer to the Apoſtles que­ſtion, Who is ſufficient for theſe things? 2 Cor. 2.16. Here is M. O. a man ſufficient, and more than ſufficient for the Miniſtry; for he can act the part of a laborious Husbandman ſix days to­gether, and on the ſeventh can perform the Office of a Spiri­tual Paſtor to a Church or Congregation of Chriſtians. And beſides his Sermon-ſufficiency, is ſo well furniſht with Polemi­cal Divinity, that he dare challenge our moſt learned Doctors to diſpute with them in the greateſt Aſſemblies; and if he may be allowed to report the paſſages of the Diſputation, will baffle them in print into ſhameful ſilence, and leave them to be laugh­ed at. Such was his vapouring vanity in his Examination of Doctor Brians Reply, where having made a ridiculous Argu­ment in the Doctors Name, he expoſeth it to this ſcornful que­ſtion, Spectatum admiſſiriſum teneatis? Mr. O. his Ex­am. of Dr. Br. Reply, p. 61.This may fitly lead in the next note of him, which we may take for an effect of his Ignorance, that is, the Arrogancy of his Spirit.

For the Novice or young Scholar (who hath leaſt know­ledge) is apt to be lifted up with pride, 1 Tim. 3.6. and who but an ignorant and arrogant man would in the Title-page of his Examination of the Doctors Reply, affront him (ſo well known to be every way a man of great worth) with ſuch diſ­dainful and diſgraceful words as theſe, The Invalidity of his Anſwers, his Sophistical helpleſs impertinent ſelf-contradicting Al­legations, are preſented to himſelf and others, &c. And as he be­ginneth, ſo he holds on the ſame inſulting ſtyle, and concluding as he began,Ibid. p. 115. I have (ſaith he) paſſed through your Reply, and it is proved empty in relation to the Vindication of your Ordination and Entrance. And in the laſt pag. but one of his Examination, his words are theſe,Ibid. p. 129. Thus in the midſt of many Employments Tem­poral and Spiritual, ſeldome allowing me one hours opportunity to­gether to attend on this task, I have given you (ſaith he to Doctor Brian and the world) an account of the unſatufactorineſs and in­ſufficiency of your Anſwers: And yet he confeſſeth the Doctor87 ſo ſufficient,See pag. 15. of his Epiſt. to the Churches of his way. 1 King. 12.10. that he is as well able to draw ſomething out of any thing, any thing out of nothing, to his preſent purpoſe, as any man he knows in England. But for all that, when he came under your hands, mighty Mr. O. (whoſe little finger. Rohoboam like, is thicker than the loyns of Solomon) he was able to do nothing but marre his own Cauſe, and ſhame himſelf, that you might have the more glorious victory over both. It was well for him that you had ſo little leiſure to attend on this task as you ſay, elſe if you had had time enough to manage your Conte­ſtation againſt him to your beſt advantage,Puritanulum iſtū in jocos & tricas contere­rem. Weſton. de triplice ho­minis officio. he might have been handled by you, as Weſton the bragging Papiſt threatned the learned Doctor Reynolds, which was, that if he could come by him, he would grinde that little Puritan into jests and trifles.

But the Doctor is (though ſuch a one as before we have re­preſented him to the Reader) but one man, and to con­quer him is nothing with this Goliah, unleſs he bid defiance to the whole Hoſt of Iſrael, and (with him) may ſtalk it over all the Pariſh Churches of this Nation; yea, and with them over all the Churches of Europe and New-England, as trodden down by his ſtrength. He profeſſeth his oppoſition of them in that latitude, in the firſt page of his Examination, and makes account he hath ſo far carried the Cauſe againſt the Doctor (as by the paſſages already noted may appear) wherein though he diſclaim all appearance of Popery both in the Diſpute and Ex­amination,Ibid. pag. 115, 129. he bewrayeth a Papal proud Spirit, even the Spirit of Pope Victor, who would have Excommunicated all the Churches which did not obſerve his rule for the time of Cele­bration of the Feaſt of Eaſter; as hath been noted under ano­ther Title.

The next notorious quality of Mr. O. is his railing and re­proching in his Examination of the Doctors Reply: as where he ſetteth upon him with theſe uncivil terms;Exam. p. 60. Tour doting dregs of desperation, and denial of the greatest part of the very Go­spel it ſelf, by which you are involved in a labyrinth of abſurdi­ties, errours and confuſions: And afterward in the ſame page, Sure, ſaith he, you ſee not what makes for you, and what againſt you: There is one part of the Gospel that you confeſs not, but88 reproch, contemn, vilifie and deride, viz. The Death of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt for all men in the world, which is commonly called Ʋ­niverſal Redemption. How far that Doctrine is to be denied, contemned, vilified, and to be bewailed rather than derided, for the horrid Blaſphemies concomitant with it, and conſequent upon it, the Reader may be ſhortly and ſufficiently informed by Mr. Marchemont Nedham,Pag. 67, 68, 69 in his fore-mentioned Book a­gainſt Mr. John Goodwyn. And againſt the Miniſtry in general, Mr. O. venteth himſelf in this virulent manner:

Mr. O. and thoſe of his ſtrain, think they ſpight the Mini­ſters of England much by calling them Prieſts,Pag. 32. and their Mini­ſtry a Prieſthood, as Mr. O. doth here and * elſwhere, in a way of reproch, wherein they bewray both their ignorance and malice: for 1. The Etymologie of the word, it is either from the La­tine word Praeest, he preſideth, or the Greek word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one ſet over another; or it is a contraction of the word Prieſter in Low Dutch, which is a contraction of the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in Greek, ſignifying an Elder, and ſo it is a Name of honour; for the Lord hath ſaid, Thou ſhalt riſe up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the Elder, Lev. 19.32. And that this is at length, what the word Prieſt is in ſhort, is evident by the al­teration which Archbiſhop Land made in the old Service-Book of England, when it was to be ſent into Scotland; for every where, where the Engliſh hath the word Prieſt, the Scotch Ser­vice-book hath the word Presbyter: nor is the word Prieſt a word of diſparagement in the New Teſtament, ſince the word Prieſt and Prieſthood is aſcribed to Chriſt above or about ten times in the Epiſtle to the Hebrews.

The ſame is given in an honorable ſenſe unto Chriſtians in 1 Pet. cap. 2. where they are called An holy Prieſthood, ver. 5. a royal Prieſthood, ver 9. and holineſs and honour do well ſort together, 1 Theſſ. 4.4. & Rev. c. 1. v. 5. c. 5. v. 10. they are (as by Titles of honour) called Kings and Prieſts, c. 20.6. Prieſts alone, in regard of their ſpiritual Sacrifices, as of praiſe, Heb. 13.15. of prayer, Pſal. 141.2. of a broken and contrite heart, Pſal. 51.17. of Alms, Heb. 13.16. by preſenting their bodies a living ſacrifice unto him, Rom. 12.1. by mortifying inordinate affections and evil concupiſcence, Col. 3.5. and by offering them­ſelves89 as dying Sacrifices for Chriſts ſake, Phil. 2.17. when they ſhall be called unto it. Thus we are not aſhamed to own the name Prieſt, but take it for a term of honour, both in the native ſenſe of the word, and uſe of the Goſpel: yet ſo we do not appropriate it to our ſelves, nor can they impoſe it upon us in any ſignification which hath affinity with a literal Sacrifice, ei­ther Jewiſh or Popiſh. In which reſpect, and becauſe in the New Teſtament Goſpel-Miniſters are never called Priests (as by a peculiar Title) Archbiſhop Whitgift in his laſt Book againſt Mr. Cartwright, p. 722. Mr. Hookers Eccleſ. Polit. lib. 5. parag. 77. p. 419. ſpeak rather againſt, than for the uſe of it, as ſo li­mited to reſtrained.

The Prieſthood of this Nation (ſaith he) are proved to be a com­pany of covetous greedy dogs, that never have enough. Page 34.And where good Sir, is that proved? or when will it be proved? ad Graecas calendas? not before. But why doth he thus bark at, yea bite the Miniſtry under the Title of Prieſthood? It is very like he thought his Maſter, Mr. Saltmarſh, had proved it, or could prove it, when he confidently demanded, What is the maintenance of Mi­niſters by Tithes, but Jewiſh and Popiſh undeniably? This is ſome of the vaniſhing vapour of his Pamphlet, which he calleth ThePag. 25. See the Anſw. to it in my Light for his Smoke, p. 19. Exam. p. 123. Smoke of the Temple.

Afterwards Mr. O. reneweth this Reproch again in theſe words, O ye Prieſts! ye violently claſp and gripe into your clutches (to maintain you in Lordly Pomp) the Tenths; nay, if all conſi­dered, the fifth part of the Nations increaſe, and poor mens labours, though many from whom you exact them, can hardly get bread for their Families. It is an eaſie matter to make this ſaving Doctrine of Tithes, as well as the other of Univerſal Grace, plauſible to carnal and covetous peple; and with ſuch, to aggravate the de­nial of the one, and aſſertion of the other to an high degree of hatred. But we look for Reaſon, not Railing, to evince the un­lawfulneſs of Tithes, and with Mr. O. and his party, not ſo im­potently to rail, prattle or ſcrible againſt them, as they uſe to do, but ſeriouſly and ſolidly to ſet upon the Confutation of thoſe which plead their lawful Tenure, againſt their cavils and clamours who except againſt them. And becauſe it may be they know not who they be, if they have any heart to undertake90 ſuch a Task, they may be better acquainted with them by the Catalogue at the end of this Diſcourſe. And if the Books be too many for them to meddle with, let them confute but three of them; one of Sir Clement Spelman an Engliſh, another of Sir James Sempell a Scottiſh Knight, the third of Mr. Prynne. I chooſe them before others, not onely becauſe they have writ­ten very ſufficiently and fully of the point in queſtion, but be­cauſe they cannot be juſtly ſuſpected of partiality, ſince none of them ever had any Miniſterial Function for their Calling, nor any Miniſterial Maintenance for their Living: And if they will confine themſelves to one onely, let it be that of M. Prynne, whoſe integrity hat been eminently tried, and yet was never tainted. And that they may preſently perceive what his Tenet is, I will ſet down the ſummary Contents of his Book, as he hath ſet it forth in the Title-page. But be­ſides Mr. O. his quarrel againſt the maintenance of Mi­niſters, he chargeth them with Cove­touſneſs in an ex­ceſſive degree, cal­ling them greedy dogs, who can ne­ver have enough.

A Goſpel Plea (interwoven with a Ratio­nal and Legal) for the Lawfulneſs and conti­nuance of the ancient ſetled Maintenance and Tenths of the Miniſters of the Goſpel; prov­ing, That there is a juſt, competent, comfort­able Maintenance due to all lawful, painful Preachers and Miniſters of the Goſpel, by Di­vine Right, Inſtitution, and expreſs Texts and Precepts of the Goſpel; That Glebes & Tithes are ſuch a maintenance, and due to Miniſters by Divine Right, Law and Goſpel; That if ſubſtracted or detained, they may lawfully be inforced by coercive Laws & Penalties; That Tithes are no real burden nor grievance to the people; The aboliſhing them no benefit to Far­mers, Husbandmen, or poor people, but a preju­dice and loſs; That the preſent oppoſition a­gainſt Tithes proceeds not from any real grounds of Conſcience, but baſe covetouſneſs, carnal policy, and a Jeſuitical and Anabapti­ſtical deſign to ſubvert and ruine our Mini­ſters, Church, Religion. With a ſatisfactory Anſwer to all Cavils and material Objections to the contrary. By William Pryn of Swainſ­wick Eſq.

Words bad enough for Hippolitus Car­dinall of Medicis,Hiſt. of the Councel of Trent, lib. 2. p. 251. Pope Clement the ſevenths Nephew, who had by his gift all the Benefices of91 the world, Secular and Regular Dignities and Parſonages, ſimple and with Cure, being vacant, for ſix meneths, to begin from the firſt day of his poſſeſſion, with power to diſpoſe and convert to his uſe all the Fruits:

Or bad enough for the Popiſh Prieſts in King Henry the eighths time, againſt whom theſe Articles, with divers others,Mart. Hiſt. of 20 Kings, pag. 381, 382. were ex­hibited: Beſides their Eccleſiaſtical Bentfices, they became Far­mers of great Granges, taking them in Leaſe in every Shire, and became Husbandmen and Graſiers, many of them kept Tanning-houſes, and were Brokers, Buyers and Ingroſſers, ſnatching up all, and inforcing Tradeſmen to buy thoſe Commodities at the ſecond or third hand at unreaſonable prices; yea, divers ignorant men among them held and enjoyed 8, 10.12, yea more Benefices and Spiritual promotions ſeverally, and yet lived not upon any of them.

Too bad for ſuch as were under the Biſhops Government, when one man had two Benefices, a Deanry, and an Arch-dea­conry, as D. D. of A. and ſome had more both in value and variety than he had. But ſince by the late Reformation Plurali­ties are taken away by Authority, and Miniſters are now con­fined to, and contented with the Revenue of a ſingle Incum­bency, (and ſome of them I am ſure refuſed to be double­beneficed while the Law did allow them) what ground or co­lour can Mr. O. have for ſuch an outragious Reproch? or what motive, but his own malice, and the inſtinct of the accuſer of the Brethren, Rev. 12.10. thus all-to-be-ſlander them, not onely in condemning their Title to Tithes as Jewiſh and Popiſh (as before is obſerved) but in charging them with claſping and griping into their Clutches a fifth part of the Nations increaſe? Wherein

  • 1. He implicitely taxeth Gods dealing with his own peculiar Nation the Jews, as guilty of partiality to the Prieſts, and of oppreſſion of the people; for the proportion paid from the one to the other, was much more than the Miniſters of England receive or require of their Pariſhioners.
  • 2. When he numbreth 8432 pariſhes in England,
    Diſp. p. 7. Exam. p. 29.
    48 as divers times he doth:
    • 1. According to his manner, he quotes no Author for it; and I finde a difference betwixt him, and thoſe who have92 been more diligent in Inquiſition, and more exact in computation than he,
      Speeds Catal. of Religious houſes, &c. at the end of the Reign of K. H. S. p. ult. of that Catalogue.
      48 as Mr. Speed, who reckoneth but 8327 in England, and in Wales 905: in both, 9232.
    • 2. Of ſo many pariſhes in divers Counties, the greateſt part of the increaſe tithable, is taken up by the Title of Impro­priations, whereof the Incumbent Miniſter hath no part.
    • 3. Where there is a Miniſter poſſeſt of a Legal Right to re­quire and receive Tithes, it is not in his power to claſp or gripe into his Clutches, as Mr. O. malignantly phraſeth it, any more than his due: The Pariſhioner who hath all the Ten parts with­in his compaſs, may eaſily leſſen his portion, yea he may take all the ten parts into his poſſeſſion, and put him to ſue for his tenth part, as one who took that defrauding Doctrine from Mr. O. his Church (though now he be gone beyond it, whither he, as well as Mr. Fiſher, may follow and overtake him) and by the pra­ctiſe of it, hath for three years together robbed the Miniſter of his Right, inning it with his own nine parts into his Barn, and perſiſting in his diſhoneſt dealing with ſuch Impudence, as to contemn the Law, and to call him Thief, who doth but with lenity and mildneſs require an account of his injurious dealing. And hence it cometh to paſs, that there is a vaſt difference be­twixt the true value of a Benefice, and that which it yeeldeth to the Incumbent Paſtor; that may be well worth 400 pounds per Annum, and this not amount to half ſo much hire to him that laboureth in the Word and Doctrine: And many can ſpeak much herein upon certain experience, and yet many times a rackt rate and eſtimation is ſet upon them both, that there may be more colour to oppreſs the Miniſter by Taxes and other ex­pences.
      M. O. Exam. p. 325.
      48But where is that Lordly Pomp he ſpeaks of maintain­ed by ſuch claſping and griping into the Clutches of the prieſts? Where are thoſe pompous prieſts to be ſeen? There was a time when the Popiſh Secular Clergy were a ſcandal to their Regular Clergy,
      Bern. Ser. 133. in cant.
      48 as in the time of Bernard eſpecially, when that devout Abbot ſet them forth in their pomp and pontificali­bus, wearing gold in their Bridles, gold in their Saddles, gold in their Spurs, having their Tables abounding with variety of meats93 meats and drinks, over flowing with ſurfetting and drunkenneſs; which yet hath been exceeded by ſome Engliſh Clergy-men, as by George Nevil Archbiſhop of York,
      See Godw. Ca talog. of Biſh p. 612. in Ed. 4 time, an. 1466 Mart. Hiſt. of Eagl. p. 368. in H. S. his reign.
      48 who at the Feaſt of his Inſtallation (the greateſt that ever was for any of his rank) was attended with Earls and Lords, and by Cardinal Wolſey, who was ſerved with Dukes and Earls when he waſhed his hands. The Biſhops ſince the Reformation of Queen Elizabeth being by Office Lords of the Upper Houſe of Parliament, and having precedence before Lords Temporal, were pompous and Lordly enough: but ſince by this laſt Reformation, the Hierarchy is come down, and their Revenues gone, I do not think but it will be very hard for Mr. O. to finde out a Miniſter (a pariſh Mini­ſter) that liveth in Lordly pomp, or any thing like it; and therefore by charging them firſt with ravenous Avarice, and afterwards with Lordly pomp (as if according to that of the Orator, That which they got with greedineſs, they laviſhed out in Luxury) is not their double ſin, but his double ſlander;
      Quod per ſce­lus adeptus eſt; per luxuriam effundit. Cicer Orat. pro Q.
      48 not their guilt, but his gaul and guile to make them odious, which yet with judicious Readers may produce a contrary effect; and the odum he intends againſt them, may recoyl upon himſelf, for charging upon Oxthodox Miniſters ſuch notorious and extrava­gant untruths; of which Calling there are now more good and fewer bad (bleſſed be God) than ever they were in any Age: And therefore ſuch exceſſive Revilings of them are not onely moſt unjuſt, but moſt unſeaſonable.

Yet he hath not done with the ſlander of Covetouſneſs, for to render the Parochial Miniſters more worthy of reproch, and leſs capable of excuſe for that Crime, and indeed hopeleſs of all cure. His next Charge, That this iniquity came in with the firſt foundation of Parochial Diviſions; and ſo as he ſaith, though moſt untruly and abſurdly of Churches, it will follow it cannot be reformed.

Fifthly, Therefore to give you his own words,Exam. p. 32. The end why England was first divided into pariſhes, was, at firſt, to diſtinguiſh the flock aſunder, that ſo the ſhepherds, or rather the ſheep-ſhearers, ſaith he, might know where to look for their fleeces. And to this he addeth a Marginal Note, as corrupt a Gloſs as the Text, and the Note is this, A work they can well enough away with ſtill, or94 any thing elſe that makes for their honour or profit, the two things on which the Prieſthood moveth. Was that the firſt or chiefe end of dividing England into Pariſhes? what proof have you of that Mr. O? your ſecond-hand citation of Mr. Saltmarſh out of the book of learned Mr. Selden De Decimis? I believe you have no better: and how little credit is to be given to that Teſtimony (as you bring it in) you may read by review of mine anſwer to it.

If you had read Mr. S. you might have learned to make a more charitable conſtruction of limiting publick Miniſtries, and allowing maintenance for Miniſters,Selden Hiſt. of Tithes. c. 9. p. 259. who writeth thus of them: when devotion grew firmer, and most Lay-men of fair estates de­ſired the Country-reſidence of ſome Chaplains, who before lived in common with the Biſhops, that they might be alwayes ready for inſtruction of them, their families and adjoyning Tenants, &c. That was the firſt and chief end of building Oratories and Churches, and of endowing them with peculiar maintenance from the founders for the Incumbents, which ſhould there only reſide: and where we read of the diviſion of the Province of Canter­bury into Pariſhes by Honorius Arch-Biſhop thereof: the rea­ſon rendered is, that he might appoint particular Miniſters to particular Congregations: thoſe are the words of the**Godwins Ca­talogue of Bi­ſhops. p 52. Eccleſ. Hiſtorian, which point to the work of the Miniſter among the people in the Church, not to his reward from the people, either in the fields of corn, or flocks of ſheep.

He hath many other reviling terms, which brought together, would make a great bundle of unſavoury weeds: but I paſs over, conceiving a leſs proportion like a poyſie, may ſuffice to ſhew the bitterneſs of his ſpirit towards Miniſters, and Churches in general. I will adde but one reproch more againſt Doctor Brian in particular, which I may not omit to remember and re­fute;Exam. p. 29. it is in the Epilogue of his latter Book: Had I time, as I have not (ſaith he) by being maintained like you by the ſweat of other mens brows, as I deſire not, &c. In which words are im­plicitly compriſed a Negative Theſis, that a man, eſpecially a Miniſter, ſhould not be maintained by the ſweat of other mens brows; and a Poſitive Hypotheſis that Doctor Brian is ſo maintained.

95

For the firſt; if ſince God layd the Law upon Adam, that in the ſweat of his face he ſhall eat bread, Gen. 3.19. it hath been unlawful for one man, eſpecially for Miniſters, to live by the labours of the people, why did God maintain his worſhip by the Miniſtry of the Levites in that manner all along the old Teſtament? and if it be unlawful under the new Teſtament for Evangelical Miniſters to be corporally ſupported by thoſe who are ſpiritually inſtructed by them; why did the Apoſtle ſay, 1 Cor. 9.11. If we have ſowen unto you ſpiritual things, is it much, if we reap your carnal things? And doth not Solomon ſay, the King himſelf is ſerved by the field, Eccleſ. 5 9. and yet he doth not, nor is it fit he ſhould put his hand to the plow as you do? nay it is ſo far from being a fault, to live by the labour of another, that we muſt one labour for another, in one kind or other: and there is a ſweat of the brain as well as of the brow; And you, methinks Mr. O. ſhould experimentally know them both to be painful, and that of the brain more painful of the two, unleſs you preach by Enthuſiaſme, without any ſtudy: for of the ſleep of a labouring man, Solomon ſaith, it is ſweet, Eccleſ. 5 12. (i. e. ) the bodily labour: but the labour of the brain will not ſuffer; and the fault is not for a King or a Coun­cellor, or a Judge, or a Warriour, a Miniſter, or an Artificer to live by the ſweat of the Husbandmans brows; for without his labour no ſociety of men could ſubſiſt: but to live idle like a Drone among the Bees, to take no pains for his living; for ſuch idle perſons ſhould not live by the Apoſtles ſentence; when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither ſhould he eat, 2 Theſ. 3.10. This for Mr. O. his Theſis; now for his Hypotheſis, as to Doctor Brian compared with himſelfe; he is not (ſaith he) maintained like Doctor Brian, with the ſweat of other mens brows, if he mean that he li­veth idle, ſo as not to deſerve his maintenance of thoſe for whom he labours, he knows neither his worth nor his work: if he did, and were (as he is) an Adverſary, and as ſuch an one, would not withhold the truth in unrighteouſneſs, as Rom. 1.18. he would confeſs him as able, as painful, powerful and profitable a Miniſter (no diſparagement to any) as any of his knowledge this day in England, and well worthy of a far more liberal ſala­ry96 then he receiveth; for beſides his preachings, which are very frequent, both on the Sabbath, and on the week day, he cate­chizeth dayly from houſe to houſe every perſon in every family within his pariſh, and yet doth much good ſervice in other pla­ces, as juſt occaſion requireth, and opportunity ſerveth, both as a learned man, and as a godly Miniſter: and were he Mini­ſter of a Country Pariſh, where Mr. O. labours as an Husband­man, I would endeavour to perſwade him to pay him Tithes, with the words of Augustine, that worthy African Doctor, and famous Diſputant,Meus eſt homo quem feci, mea eſt terra quam colis, mea ſunt ſemina quae ſpargis, mea animalia quae fatigas, meae ſunt im­bres & pluviae, & ventorum flamina mea ſunt, meus eſt ſolis calor; & cùm omnia ma ſunt elementa vivendi, tu qui manus accommodas, ſolum decimum merebaris: Deus ſibi tantum decimum vendicans, nobis omnia donavit, ingrate fraudator & perſide, &c. Aug. de Temp. Serm. 219. Tom. 10. p. 640. or rather the words of God, for he ſpeaks in his name to the Husbandman: Mine is man whom I have made; mine is the earth which thou tilleſt; mine is the ſeed which thou diſperſeſt; mine are the cattel which thou wearieſt in tillage; mine are the ſhowrs of rain which moyſten the earth, and make it fruitful; mine are the blaſts of winds which fan the air; mine is the heat of the Sun, which warms both earth, and ſeeds, and plants, and makes them grow; and when all the Elements of life are mine, thou who only lendeſt thy hand to all theſe means, and deſervedſt but a Tenth, haſt nine parts, and God hath reſerved but a Tenth for himſelf, and wilt thou withhold that, thou ungrateful and perfidious wretch, wilt thou defraud him of that? pay to God the tenth, leſt he bring thee to the tenth, &c.

The next ill quality which I ſhall note in Mr. O. is his Parti­ality, whereof I will give three Teſtimonies in ſtead of many more, which I might produce out of his examination of the Doctors Reply; one at the beginning of it in his Epiſtle, as he ſtileth it, To the impartial Reader, to which it might be truly ad­ded, From a moſt partial Writer: There he ſpeaketh much againſt Epiſtolary prejudice, to make the Readers to reject the opini­on which the Writer oppoſeth, when himſelf is ſo forward to commit the ſame fault, that he is guilty of it in the Title page, where he anticipateth the Readers judgement of the cauſe (be­fore it be heard) with notorious calumnies of his adverſaries part of the difference and egregious flatteries of his own in theſe words which I have cited in part**At pag. 126. before under another97 Title, and to another purpoſe: but in this place it will not be impertinent to ſet forth more fully his malignant partiality.

Doctor Brians Reply to the Anſwer of his ten firſt Argu­ments, levied (ſaith he) to prove the Pariſhes of this Nation true Churches, Examined.

The invalidity of all his anſwers, his ſophiſtical helps, imperti­nent ſelf-contradicting allegations are preſented to himſelf and o­thers, to the clearer diſcovery of the Popiſh, Political, Antichriſtian, and like preſent conſtitution of the Parochial Aſſemblies of this Na­tion, having yet never been true Churches from their very founda­tion, nor poſſible to be made true by Reformation, having had ne­ver yet any true Geſpel-conſtitution.

As alſo the Antichriſtian Call, Entrance, Doctrine, &c. of the National Ministry in part unvailed.

With a Confirmation of ſome of thoſe precious Apoſtolical truths, ſo vehemently cried down as Heretical, ſo far as directly or occaſionally there was way made for their vindication; By J. O. an unworthy ſervant of Jeſus Chriſt, and of his poor deſpiſed Church. To which he annexeth two Texts of Scripture, Jer. 15.14, 15. and Revel. 18.11, 15. both againſt Babylon.

That which in all this is principally now to be noted is his palpable partiality, and moſt apparent contradiction betwixt the contents of his Title page, and his Epiſtle to the Reader: but withall, I might obſerve many groſs untruths, both againſt the Doctor and the Churches, owned and defended by him, and a­gainſt the Call, Entrance, and Doctrine of the National Mini­ſtry, which he calleth Antichriſtian; when, for ought I can perceive by the printed Diſputation, or his Examination, he doth not know who is Antichriſt, or what is Antichriſtian. But98 theſe are met withal elſewhere in this diſcourſe, as juſt occaſion required. For the preſent I ſhall only commend unto the Rea­der this obſervation of Mr. John Onley and his adherents, viz. that moſt indiſcreetly and abſurdly they uſually renounce that which in the Romaniſts is agreeable to the Dictates of Rea­ſon, Conſcience, and Scripture, as Popiſh and Antithriſtian, as I have already ſhewed in this Chapter, and agree with them in that which is truely popiſh and Antichriſtian, as Error, Pride, Schiſme, Cenſoriouſneſs, Malice, Slander, ſophiſtical Subtilty, as their writings and doings do declare, eſpecially Mr. J. O. in his dealing with Doctor Brian, in his unfaithful publication of the diſputation at Kenelmworth, and in his other bitter and inſo­lent Book of Examination afterward.

The ſecond proof of his partiality is this; when Doctor Bri­an hath proved our Churches of England to be true Churches of Chriſt by convincing arguments;Nam quae non proſunt ſin­gula, juncta valent. Diſp. p. 6. (convincing if taken toge­ther, though all of them be not of equal evidence and vigour) all that avails nothing towards Mr. O. his ſatisfaction, unleſs he prove an impertinency to the Queſtion, viz. That they were true Churches from their very foundation, that is, as he explaineth himſelf more fully elſewhere, that all the pariſhes of this Nation, in their first diviſion into Pariſhes were viſible Saints, and that thoſe Churches gathered by preaching onely 500.Exam. of Dr. Br. Reply. p. 30, 37. Ibid. p. 24. Diſp. p. 5. years before Augu­ſtine the Monk, were ſuch as our Pariſhes now are, or that they are ſuch now, as they were then: and this he maketh the life of the Doctors cauſe; and if he prove not this (ſaith he) he doth nothing, whereas it is neither the life nor limb of his cauſe; no, neither hair nor nail of it; neither a skirt nor an hem: but indeed meet nothing to the purpoſe. And therefore the Doctor did juſtly and diſcreetly decline it as impertinent, ſaying, it is our Chur­ches preſent, not their primitive ſtate which I undertake to vin­dicate; and this upon very good reaſon. For,

Firſt, The Churches, whoſe primitive conſtitution was the beſt and neareſt to that of the Apoſtler, both in time, matter, and form, as that of Jeruſalem, Rome, Antioch, and the Churches of Aſia, long ſince are fallen from the faith, and have unchur­ched themſelves by their Apoſtaſie.

Secondly, It is but a Jeſuitical evaſion from the pertinency and99 life of the cauſe of a true Chriſtian Church, to wave the preſent qualifications and notes of it, and to put all the weight and ſtreſs of the trial upon the Hiſtorical report of precedent times; as while we prove our Church to be a true Church, and our Faith a true Faith by the Scriptures, as Doctor Featley dd a­gainſt Fiſher the Jeſuite, that would be taken for no good proof with him, unleſs he deduced the viſibility of the Proteſtant Profeſſors, through all ages from the Apoſtles to Luthers time; and he profeſſed he would not proceed in the diſpute, unleſs that were firſt done, as is obſerved before.

Thirdly, If it were pertinent, and were alſo proved by Chro­nological Hiſtory, it would ſerve but to make up a meer Hu­mane and Hiſtorical Faith, which is not effectual to Salvation; and the doubt of it where it is required and not proved (as it is no eaſie matter to do) may raiſe perplexing doubts and fears of ſalvation in weak, though well-minded Chriſtians; as cauſing ſuſpicious conceits of their being in a true Church, out of which, as out of Noahs Ark (the common ſaying is) none are ſa­ved.

Yet this unſound and groundleſs aſſertion of his, which hath neither proof of Scripture, Reaſon, or of any humane Author of credit or account, be not onely putteth into the very front of his Examination (frontinulla fides) but repeateth it over and over, both in the Diſputation and Examination, to puzzle the ſimple Hearers of the one, and Readers of both;Diſp. p. 1, 6, 7, 12. Exam. p. 11, 12, 13, 24, 27, 28, 30, 37. and to make them believe that there was ſomewhat in it, which made the Doctor afraid to meddle with it; whereas it was a meer extra­vagancy from the queſtion in hand, which to ſuch as are intel­ligent, ſhews Mr. O. to be a Jeſuitical ſhifter; and that he may appear more and worſe then a Jeſuite, he taketh upon him to be a Pope, peremptorily defining tanquam ex Cathedra Peſti­lentiae, not only that our Churches have never been true Chur­ches from the foundation of them, but that it is not poſſible for them to be made true by reformation. Thus in the Title page of his Examination, wherein his ignorance, confidence, and imprudence are all of them ſuperlative, and worthy of none o­ther anſwer then a ſcornful ſilence.

Yet the other part of his partiality which now I am to prove,100 will implicitly at leaſt confute it fully; for he that is ſo injuri­ous, as to impoſe upon the Doctor ſuch an impertinency, as the life of his cauſe, and to regard none of his proofs, though ne­ver ſo pregnant, for the truth of our Churches, is ſo gracious to his own ſide, as to reſolve that a true Church may be conſti­tuted thus, A company of true Believers aſſembled in the Name of Christ, willing to follow him in the way of his ordinances revealed in his word, and yet ſeeing their want of a perſonal ſucceſſion, and yet knowing it their duty, and the will of Chriſt, it ſhould be per­formed, did appoint one that was unbaptized to reaſſume and ſet a­foot this ordinance of Chriſt. And if ſo, how partial is Mr. O. who makes it impoſſible for our Churches to be made true by any reformation? for how eaſie a matter is it for Churches to be reformed after that manner?

The third partiality of Mr. O. appeareth in his Epiſtle to his Schiſmatical Siſter-Churches, where he taketh upon him to make a long Paraphraſe on the words of Ananias to Saul, Acts 22.18. but when Doctor Brian makes but a ſhort one on the words of Peter, Acts 2.39. The promiſe is made to you and to your Children: ſaying, if the promiſe be made to believers and their children, the command muſt reach not only to them but to their children, as running thus, be baptized you and your children, for the promiſe is made to you and to your children.

To this Mr. O. in a jeering manner replye••, As if Peter Were not wiſe enough to expreſs his own meaning, to direct us who ſhould be, or the grounds upon which they ſhould be baptized, without your prieſtly prudence: ſurely might you have come to the honour, or been worthy to have been a Dictator to Peter, you would have taught him to have ſaid ſome what from whence Infants right of Baptiſm might have been proved. With this partiality appeareth a ſpice of his inſolency formerly obſerved. But if Doctor Bian had been worthy, and had taken upon him to play the Dictator, he had acted that part a great deal better, by deducing Infants Bap­tiſme from the words of Peter, then Mr. O. did, dictating ſuch an Aphoriſm out of his own fancy, concerning neceſſary re­courſe to the primitive conſtitution of a Church, to prove it to be a true Church at preſent, which we have now examined and refuted.

101

The fourth partiality I ſhall mention is this; he will not be turned over by Dr. Brian to Mr. Hollingworth for ſatisfaction concerning the name Pariſh, and parochial precincts;Exam p. 22, 23. Diſp. p. 48. yet in a matter of greater difficulty (as the ſetting up of Church-ordi­nances by an unbapt zed perſon) he turns his Reader over to an obſcure Treatiſe, entitled, The way to Zion: and Doctor Brian citing Mr. Baxters 27 Arguments for Church-memberſhip, Mr. O. puts him off with Mr. Fiſhers Reply,Exam. p. 128. in his imagination proving the contrary, where he hath this ill hap to make his reference, and to beſtow a commendable Epithet upon a Qua­ker (for ſuch an one is Mr. Fiſher now become) and as ſuch an one Mr. O. muſt be a ſharp adverſary againſt him,Epiſt. p. 15, 16, 17. Diſp. p. 15, 18, 19. Exam. p 32, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 47, 50. unleſs he will be partial in that alſo; for he writes ſharply againſt the Quakers. But Mr. Baxter is a more rational, religious, ſound, and ſetled Divine, then that there can be any fear at all that he will ever turn or become ſo wretched a changeling.

I will take but one exception more out of the two Books of his publication, and that is concerning the Civil Magiſtrate, a­gainſt the exerciſe of whoſe authority in matters of Religion he often uttereth his diſlike, eſpecially as it is aſſiſtant to Mi­niſters in the Miniſterial function; whereof I will mention but one paſſage of ſome importance,Exam. p. 53. margin. though it be with him but in a Marginal note, which is this; [The Sword of the Magiſtrate being your beſt relief, without which I think you would live but a while.] Whereof his meaning may be, that their authority maintains the Miniſters publick maintenance, without which they could not ſubſiſt. But conſider the ſpightful ſpirit of him and his Sect againſt them, as ſuppoſing them and their Chur­ches to be Romiſh, Popiſh, Antichriſtian, and Babyloniſh; and ſo would have them uſed no better then Babylon (but would ſtir up mortal enemies againſt them, as againſt her, according to that of Jr. 50.14, 15. in the Text ſet in the Title page of Mr. O. his examination) there is a juſt cauſe of jealouſie, by that ſpeech, of as malicious a meaning as may be towards them, becauſe of the affinity of their principles with thoſe of the Donatiſts, and of their conſanguinity in practice with the bloody-minded**Ad hanc hae­reſin, id eſt, Donatiſt. in Africa, & illi pertinent qui appellantur Circumcellin­nes, genus ho­miū agreſte, & famoſiſſi­mae audaciae, non ſolum in a lios immania facinora per­petrando, ſed, &c. Aug. dhaereſ. Tom 6. p. 33. Cir­cumcellions, to which Sect they are ſorted by Augustine in his Catalogue of Herſies.

102

CHAP. X. A Concluſive Anſwer to Doctor Brians deſire of Advice (whether it be better to let Mr. O. alone, or to an­ſwer him according to his folly) ſent him a good while ago by his Son, but now publiſhed with enlarge­ment, for ſatisfaction of others as well as of the Do­ctor himſelf: Reaſons many and weighty for the Nega­gative.

WHat was my mind (in anſwering your requeſt by your Son when he brought you Letter, the Diſputation at Kenelmworth, and Mr. O. his Examination of your Reply, after the reading of what you ſent me, and writing of theſe Papers I now ſend you) in the ſame I perſiſt with ſtronger confidence then I had at firſt; and for it I ſhall now give you clearer and fuller evidence of the expedience of my Advice then at that time I could do, which was the ſame that Hezekiah gave to his people concerning railing Sabſhtkah, anſwer him not, a Kings 18.16. and Iſa. 36.21.

My Reaſons are,

First, I thought you came much below the elevation of your own worth, when you entred the Liſts with an illiterate man, as Mr. J. O. is, albeit of a wrangling wit; though there was a kind of neceſsity I confeſs at that time, for the exerciſe of your humility upon his proud challenge, as of your ingenuity and ability in the conflict.

Secondly, I ſuſpected your confidence in committing the copy of your diſpute to his publication by the Preſs, would be abuſed by him, and ſo I believe it was more wayes then one, as I have ſhewed.

Thirdly, I ſaw the arrogancy of the mans ſpirit in the Title page of his Examination, which made me deem him an indoci­ble Sophiſter, far from the good mind of Hierom, who deſired103 proficiency in what is good, and to change his mind from any thing that is bad. Utinam mihi ſic ſemper diſ­putare contin­gat, ut ad me­liora profici­ens deſe­ram quod ma­ tenebam. Hieron. dve­ſus Luciſerian. vol. 2. p. 147. Diſp p. 33.Your ſelfe had ſome experience of his refractory humour; when though he did or might have heard from your mouth a ſatisfactory diſcourſe, in vindication of the Miniſtry of England, wherein all that he had objected, and much more was fully anſwer­ed; yet he ſaid, that you would not, or could not prove it a true Mi­niſtry.

Fourthly, I obſerved how perverſely he dealt with you, in impoſing unreaſonable conditions upon you in diſputation, where­in if you did not ſatisfie him, all you did was nothing; whereas that with him of ſo great moment was nothing to the purpoſe, as I have ſhewed: and in a wilful refuſal to conſult with any Author of your propoſal for his ſatisfacti­on. You turn me over to Mr. Hollingworth (ſaith he) in anſwer to which ſhift, I tell you once more, in that path I will not follow you; for in this controverſial age, ſo many books have been written on both ſides, if we ſhould take this way, when ſhould we anſwer our ſelves? To return each other to others works, you may find me (and I could you as eaſily) work till you are weary, to anſwer all books,Mr. O. Exam. p. 22, 23. pro and con, about this ſubject; then in doing of which (ſeeing enough is ſaid already) I hope to employ my ſelf better.

For what you ſhall anſwer your ſelf, either of your ſelf, or by the pens of others tranſcribed for your ſelf, let it be Mr. Hollingworth,Ibid. or who it will be, I will not decline the anſwering thereunto; but at your return to them I will not go, it being you I deal with. Where­in refuſing your offer, he renders a reaſon which makes againſt him, viz becauſe in this controverſial age, ſo many books be writ­ten on both ſides; why then ſhould any more be added by you and him of the ſame controverſie, when they have been more accurately diſcuſſed already by writing and printing, then by polemical concertation in diſcourſe (whereof much is meerly extemporary) they are like to be? And he ſaith, he hopeth to employ himſelf better; and if he can employ himſelf better then by reading ſuch Books, as were adviſedly and deliberately di­ctated, to ſatisfie ſuch as doubt, and ſettle doubtful Readers in the truth in queſtion; ſure you may employ your ſelf better, then in putting your ſelf to the pains and expence of time, to write out Arguments and Anſwers for his ſutisfaction; becauſe104 he wants the books you direct him to, or will not be at coſt to buy them, or trouble to peruſe them; and if he did read them, would bring a reſolution rather to cavil at them, then to re­ceive reſolution from them. When you have leiſure to waſh a Black-moor, you may ſpare ſome time to ſpend upon your ſelf-conceited and ſelf-willed adverſary Mr. J. O. for ſuch an one will every judicious man judge him to be, who reads with indif­ferency the Diſputation and Examination publiſhed by him a­gainſt you.

Fifthly, you have too much precious work in your hands e­very day, then that you can warrantably lay any part of it a­ſide, to contend with ſuch an obſtinate adverſary as Mr. Onley is; and I am verily perſwaded, and I aſſure my ſelf, many that know your various and unceſſant pains for the ſouls of your people of Coventry, are of my mind, that thereby you do more good in a week there, then you ſhall do by diſputing with, or writing againſt a perverſe Anabaptiſt a whole year toge­ther.

Sixthly, There are ſo many now engaged in the defence of the Churches of Chriſt (for now Mr. O. ſets himſelf againſt all the Churches of Europe, and New England, beſides Old En­gland) that ſo much work cannot in reaſon fall to your ſhare, as ſtill to manage the defence of them all againſt him, or any ſuch obſtreperous talker; eſpecially having ſuch a weighty bur­den of paſtoral employment continually upon you.

Seventhly, If you ſhould ſet all aſide, and encounter him at the Preſs, as you have done by Diſputation in the Church, it would be to little purpoſe or profit, both in reſpect of Mr. O. and of his party. For,

Firſt for him, unleſs you anſwer him in every particular how impertinent ſoever, you ſhall ſtill be under his exception and inſultation, to the great prejudice both of your cauſe & perſon; for he not onely taxeth you for deficient anſwering already, ſay­ing, to a great part of his anſwer you have not ſaid one word, and that your Reply paſſeth over juſt half his Anſwer, without a word of Reply. Exam. of Dr. •…. Rep. p. 28. Ibid. p. 115.But ſuch is his inſolency, that (as if he had authority to preſcribe your part of the controverſie, as well as to diſpoſe of his own) he layeth this ſevere Law upon you, if you conteſt105 with him again, exactly to anſwer to each particular plainly and downrightly by reaſons and Scriptures directly to the purpoſe, or elſe to confeſs you cannot, by ſaying nothing. Neither ſo nor ſo; For datur tertium, a man may ſilently pais by an eſpecial part of his Book written in defence of a precious truth,Mr. O. his Ex­am. of Dr. Br. Reply, p. 69. as he phraſeth it, that is, Univerſal Redemption, becauſe it is diſcovered to be a pernicious error, and abundantly confuted by Doctor Kendall, in anſwer to M. John Goodwins Book called Redemption Redeemed; and another part as impertinent as that ſo often inculcated poſition of Mr. O. Of the firſt conſtitution of Churches; and an­other part is anſwered by Dr. Br. before, as that for the Vin­dication of the Miniſtry of England: no need then of confeſſing you can ſay nothing,Diſp. p. 33. becauſe you do not ſay all things as he appointeth you. Mr. Fiſher made a more modeſt reſolution concerning his adverſary and himſelf; If any one anſwer (ſaith he) and I have ſatisfaction from him to the contrary, he ſhall hear of my Recantation; if I have not, he ſhall ſee it by my ſilence. Mr. Fiſher in his anſwer to Nobody in 5 words. p 465.So may you better ſignifie your diſſatisfaction with Mr. O. his Ex­amination of your Reply by your ſilence, then endeavour his ſatisfaction by a printed anſwer unto it, and that upon his rea­ſon, viz becauſe he would not loſe any more time from preaching, at I ſee I must (ſaith he) if I meddle any more at the Preſs with this ſubject.

Secondly, It would be to as little purpoſe and profit, in re­ſpect of his party,Veſtra ſolum legitis, veſtra amatis, caetera causâ incog­nitâ condem­natis. Cicer. l. 2. de natur. deorum. p. 216. Medicamenta neſciunt, & in­ſani ſunt ad­verſus antido­tum quâ ſani eſſe potuiſſent, Aug. confeſſ. l. 9. c. 4. who are ſo poſſeſſed with prejudice againſt your cauſe by their teachers, odious invectives and exclamati­ons againſt you, your Church and Miniſtry as Popiſh and An­tichriſtian, that they will not onely not buy, but not ſo much as look upon an Apology for you, being ſick of the perverſe partiality which the Orator reproveth in ſome Philoſophical Hereticks of his time, You read onely what is written for your own ſide (ſaith he) and love onely what is your own, for other things you condemn them, the cauſe unheard. And as Aguſtine obſerveth of ſome of like diſtempered paſſions, though ſo much the worſe, as errors in Divinity are worſe then errors in Philo­ſophy: They know not what is Phyſick for them, and are mad (ſaith he) againſt the Medicine which ſhouldoure them of their madneſs. Such are many of the beſotted Proſelytes of ſeducing Teachers of the preſent age.

106

In reſpect of ſuch froward and perverſe oppoſites, as both they and they leaders (for the moſt part) manifeſt themſelves, ſi­lence may ſometimes be more ſeaſonable then Replications and Rejoynders: for,Quorum dicta contraria ſi toties refellere velimus, quo­ties obnixa fronte ſtatue­runt non carere quid dicant, dum quomodocunque noſtris diſputationibus contradicant, quàm infinitum & aerumnoſum & infructuoſum? &c. Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 2. c. 1. Tom. 1. p. 63. as Auguſtine putteth the caſe, If we ſhould ſet our ſelves to refell the contrary Tenets of thoſe who have hard­ned their foreheads, ſo as to reſolve they will have ſomewhat to ſay, ſo they may any way gainſay our disputations, how endleſs, how grievous, how unprofitable will our trouble be?

Eighthly, If there were a neceſſity that Mr. O. ſhould be fur­ther anſwered by you, or ſome body for you, you have three Sons, the youngeſt of whom would be able enough to under­take him by an Examination and Conviction of his Examinati­on of error and ſlander, of pride and vanity: but neither would I have any of them put to ſo unprofitable a Task, becauſe I hear they are all of them dayly employed in better work. Therefore,

Ninthly, If after theſe Animadverſions upon him and his Book, it be requiſite to take any further courſe to take down the Tympany of Mr. O. his ſwelling ſelf-conceit, I ſhall pro­poſe it to the ſerious conſiderations of our Venerable Society, at their meeting at Kenelmworth, to invite him to a publick Diſputation there once again, to be ordered and managed ac­cording to the Rules forementioned. So you have mine advice as you deſired, with what I further promiſed; for which, if any thing be worthy of your acceptance and theirs, who are our Brethren in intereſt and affection to the cauſe wherein you firſt, and now I am publickly engaged, I deſire your thanks to God for it, and prayers for me.

Yours in the deareſt relations of Chriſtianity and Friendſhip, JOHN LEY.
107

The Catalogue of Books in defence of the lawfulneſs of Tithes promiſed before in Chap. 9.

  • 1. THe maintenance of the Miniſters of the Go­ſpel, by Rich. Eburne. printed 1619. for Eleazer Edgar, to be ſold at the Windmill in Pauls Church-yard, in 4to
  • 2. The Scourge of Sacri­ledge, by Sam. Gardener, DD. printed for Tho. Man, 1611. 8vo.
  • 3. Tithes examined and proved due to the Clergy by Divine Right, by George Carl­ton, for Clement Knight at the Lamb in Pauls Church-yard, 1611. in 4to.
  • 4. Revenue of the Goſpel, by Fulk Roberts, printed by Cantrel Logge at Cambridge, 1613, in 4to.
  • 5. The Anatomy of Ana­nias, or Gods cenſure againſt Sacriledge, by R. G. printed by C. L. at Cambridge, 1616. 4to.
  • 6. Levi his complaint, by Will. Guild of Edenbury, 1617. in 4to.
  • 7. Sacriledge ſacredly hand­led, by Sir James Sempel, prin­ted at London for Edm. Wea­ver, 1619. to be ſold at the great North door of Pauls, in 4to.
  • 8. Animadverſions on Mr. Seld. Hiſt. of Tithes, by Rich, Tolleſley, printed by John Bill, 1619. in 4to.
  • 9. Diatribe upon the firſt part of the Hiſt. of Tithes, by Rich. Montague, for Mattk. Lownes, printed 1621. in 4to.
  • 10. The poor Vicars Plea, by Tho. Reeves Dr. of the Ci­vil Law, printed by John Bill, 1621. in 4to.
  • 11. The Queſtion of Tithes Reviſed, Arg. for the morali­ty of Tithing cleared, by Wil­liam Sclater DD. printed by John Legate, 1623. in 4to.
  • 12. A new diſcovery of perſonal Tithes, by Cornelius Burges, printed for William Sheffard in Popes-Head-Alley 1625. in 12mo.
  • 13. An anſwer to the Jew­iſh part of Mr. Seld. Hiſt. of Tithes, by Stephen Nettles,108 printed at Oxford, 1625. in 4to.
  • 14. Jacobs Vow, or the true Hiſt. of Tithes, by Rich. Perrot at Cambridge, by Tho. and John Buck, printed 1627. in 4to.
  • 15. Goſpel-maintenance, by Rich. Johnſon, for Mich-Sparks, printed 1633.
  • 16. Liberal maintenance ma­nifeſtly due to the Miniſter. of the Goſp. by Joſhuah Meene, printed for Laur. Chapman at Chancery Lane end in Hol­born, Ann. 1638.
  • 17. The Parſons Law, by William Hughs of Grays Inne Eſq; for the Author printed 1641. in 8vo.
  • 18. The complete Parſon, by John Doderige, for Iohn Grove, printed 1641. in 4to.
  • 19. The maintenance of the Sanctuary, for Iohn Maynard at the George in Fleetſtreet, near St. Dunſtans Church, printed 1642. in 4to.
  • 20. Nolime tangere, Anno 1642.
  • 21. Tithes remounted and advanced, by Martin Bown for Tho. Bates at the Maiden­head on Snow-hill, near Hol­borne, printed 1646. in 4to.
  • 22. A defence of the Right of Tithes againſt ſundry late ſcandalous Pamphlets, by E. B. printed by George Miller, 1646. in 4to.
  • 23. Sacriledge a Snare, by Lancelot Andrews, for Andr, Heb at the Bel in Pauls church­yard, printed 1646.
  • 24. The Preachers Plea, by William Tipping Eſq; for Chri­ſtopher Meredith, 1646. in 12mo.
  • 25. De non temerandis Ec­cleſiis, by Sir Henr. Spelman at Oxford, for Henry Hall printer there, 1646. in 4to.
  • 26. Sir H. Spelmans great­er work concerning Tithes, for Philemon Stephens, printed 1647. in 4to.
  • 27. An anſwer to a Letter by Sam. Turner, concerning the Church and Revenue ther­of, printed 1647. in 4to.
  • 28. The Civil Right of Tiths, by Charles Enterfield, for John Holden at the Anchor in the N. Exchange. 1650. in 4to.
  • 29. The muzzled Ox trea­ding out the corn, for Will, Hope at the Unicorn in Corn­hill, printed 1650. in 4to.
  • 30. The Miniſters Hue and Cry. by Rich. Culmer, printed by A. Miller 1651. in 4to.
  • 31. The Undeceiv. of the people in point of Tithes, by Philem. Trelaine Gent. for Jo. Clark under Peters Church in Cornhill, 1651. in 4to.
  • 32. The Right of Tithes aſſerted, 1653. in 4to.
  • 109
  • 33. A ſecond vindication of Tithes againſt a paper ſtiled, Tiths totally routed by Magna Charta, printed for Tho. Heath, near the Piazza of Coven Gar­den, printed 1653. in 4to.
  • 34. The maintenance of Mi­niſt. by Tithes, by John Gau­den DD. for Andr. Crook, prin­ted 1653. in 4to.
  • 35. Tithes the Churches Right, by the Laws of God, Nature, and this Nation, by Bovil Turminger, for Rich. Lowndes, 1653. in 4to.
  • 36. An Apology for pious and painful Miniſters, printed for John Wright at the Kings head in the Old Bayly, printed 1653. in 4to.
  • 37. The Worceſter petition to the Parliament for the Mi­niſtry of England defended, for Tho Vnderhill, by Fr. Ty­tan, 1653. in 4to.
  • 38. A Goſpe pl lea for Maint. and Tenths of the Miniſters of the Gospel, by Will. Prynne Eſq; for Mich. Sparks, printed 1653. in 4to.
  • 39. The Civil right of Tiths, proving 1. That the propriety of Tithes is not in the Land­holder. 2. Nor in the State. 3. But in the Incumbent, for Iohn Wright at the Kings head in the Old Bayly, printed 1653 in 4to.
  • 40. An argument in defence of the Right of Patrons to Ad­vowſons, and of the Right of Tithes, for Edw. Blackmore at the Angel in Pauls Church-yard, printed 1653. in 4to.
  • 41. The Parſons Guide, on the Law of Tithes, by W. S. Eſq; printed for Will. Lee, D. Pakemere, and G. Bedel, at their ſhops in Fleetſtreet, printed 1654. in 4to.
  • 42. The due Right of Tithes examined by an aged Gen­tleman, for Tho. Pierripont at the Sun in Pauls Church-yard, printed 1654. in 4to.

I have more then theſe, and there are ſome more which I have not, but theſe may ſuf­fice.

About this transcription

TextA discourse of disputations chiefly concerning matters of religion, with animadversions on two printed books, (mentioned in the contents following next after the epistles:) the latter whereof, at the request of Dr. John Bryan, (for censure and advice) being seriously perused; the author of it, John Onley, is thereupon convinced of error, slander, and of arrogant, uncivill, and unchristian miscarriage, not onely towards him, but all the reformed churches of the world, out of the way of his most affected singularity. By John Ley, rector of the church of Solyhull in Warwicksh. Whereto is added a consolatory letter to Dr. Bryan, &c. upon the death of his worthily well-beloved and much bewailed son Mr. Nathaniel Bryan: which immediately followeth after the discourse of disputations.
AuthorLey, John, 1583-1662..
Extent Approx. 328 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 62 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
Edition1658
SeriesEarly English books online.
Additional notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A88101)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 168513)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 140:E938[1], 140:E938[2])

About the source text

Bibliographic informationA discourse of disputations chiefly concerning matters of religion, with animadversions on two printed books, (mentioned in the contents following next after the epistles:) the latter whereof, at the request of Dr. John Bryan, (for censure and advice) being seriously perused; the author of it, John Onley, is thereupon convinced of error, slander, and of arrogant, uncivill, and unchristian miscarriage, not onely towards him, but all the reformed churches of the world, out of the way of his most affected singularity. By John Ley, rector of the church of Solyhull in Warwicksh. Whereto is added a consolatory letter to Dr. Bryan, &c. upon the death of his worthily well-beloved and much bewailed son Mr. Nathaniel Bryan: which immediately followeth after the discourse of disputations. Ley, John, 1583-1662.. [20], 126 p. printed for Nath: Webb and Will: Grantham, at the black Bear in St. Pauls Church-yard, over against the little north door,London :M DC LVIII. [1658]. (A reply to an untraced work by John Onley and to "A publick disputation sundry dayes at Killingworth" by John Bryan.) (Includes bibliography.) (With an errata leaf and three advertisement leaves bound after B2.) ("A consolatory letter to Dr. John Brian, D.D." has separate dated title page. with continuous pagination and register; located at E.938[2].) (Annotation on Thomason copy: "Aprill 13.".) (Reproduction of the original in the British Library.)
Languageeng
Classification
  • Bryan, Nathaniel, 1628 or 9-1657.
  • Bryan, John, d. 1676. -- Publick disputation sundry dayes at Killingworth -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800.
  • Onley, John -- Early works to 1800.
  • Theology, Doctrinal -- Early works to 1800.

Editorial statement

About the encoding

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial principles

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

Publication information

Publisher
  • Text Creation Partnership,
ImprintAnn Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2012-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2).
Identifiers
  • DLPS A88101
  • STC Wing L1877
  • STC Thomason E938_1
  • STC Thomason E938_2
  • STC ESTC R205182
  • EEBO-CITATION 99864614
  • PROQUEST 99864614
  • VID 168513
Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.