Disputations Concerning Matters of Religion, Discourse · Chapter 4

Disputations Concerning Matters of Religion · Discourse · Chapter 4

p. 31CHAP. 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.

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 it p. 32came to p…ſſe 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 as ccId habebant Academici decr…tum, nihil poſſe percipi. Cic. Ib. edit. 1. l. 2. p. 49. Num. 29.Num 29a 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. Theffforeign. 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 ofggDua 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.Phil 2 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 onelyonly to clear problematicall,hhNon 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 fundamentall p. 33doctrines, 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 Arch…ngel, 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, p. 34Deut. 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, ſaith““Inter 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; the nnThema 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 the p. 35Prophets, 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 foreign 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 faſter p. 36and 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 of““Ann. 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 he p. 37ttDeclarat 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 dark wwAnd abatae qui nocte vel qui cl…uſis 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 ofxxAlphonſus 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-ſ…e and p. 38order 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.

p. 39Arnobius 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 S…verians; 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 Aſia ooSee 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 onelyonly 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 termino p. 40Paſch. anno 546. But the moſt famous diſpute about that matter was that whichrrB…de 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. B…dae 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. 15…8.

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.

p. 41After 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 at que moroſus, 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 onelyonly 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 time p. 42to 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 Oxford eeIbid. 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 a p. 43certain 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 audi…nce, 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 and p. 44Princes, 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 Sigiſmu…d 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 onelyonly 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 good p. 45agreement 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 46The 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 D…ans of the Chappel, Worceſter, Weſtminſter, Pauls, Cheſter, Windſor, with Dr. Field, and Dr. King Archdeacon of Notingham: and on the other, Dr. Reynolds, Mr. Spa…k…, 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. D…vids 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.

p. 47Of 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 onelyonly 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.