An end of doctrinal controversies which have lately troubled the churches

What •f one man think that he may pray to his Angel Guardian and another saith only that he oweth Angels Love, Reverence and Gratitude, and would pray to them if he knew when they heard him, and knew it were God's will, what hurt will it do to the other man to bear with this? If we agree of all points that put men into that state in which Christ commanded to Love one another as his Disciples; if others differ from me about the meaning of five hundred Texts of Scripture, why may not be contented with my Knowledge and Opinion, and leave them to theirs? Why might not Nazianzene and the Council of Constantinople, Hierome and Russinus, Chrysostom and Theophilus and Epiphanius, Prosper and Cassianus and Vincentius, (to pass by Augustine and Celestine and Julianus, and Hierome and Vigilantius and Jovinian) have composed their differences with less noise and strife, and lived in love and peace together. (To pass by also the doleful Contentions about the Councils of Ephesus and Calcedon, and Const. 5, & 6. and Nice 2. and between Ignatius and Photius, and many more worse stri•es since then) Why might not the Jesuits and Jansenists have differed without troubling the Popes and the Church, by mutual forbearance and gentle disputes, as many of the Schoolmen did before them? I quarrel not with Erasmus, Faber, and abundance such, for chiding the Schoolmen as Causers of Contention, by raising so many frivolous questions for Dispute: But verily, as they were in my opinion the best Philosophers that ever the World had, (and no wonder when they studied little else) so ⟨p. 16⟩they managed their Disputes with more Scholarlike candour and peaceable moderation than most that went before them, or that have followed them. How many huge Volumes of subtle Disputes do they write, with very few railing words: patiently bearing each others copious Confutations and Contradictions, as a thing to be expected, and no whit wondering at the Differences of Judgment among the worthiest men? How many Volumes, or loads of Volumes are there written, of the different Opinions of the Thomists, Scotists, Nominals, Durandists; and yet till the late times put Virulency into the Writings of Jesuits, Dominicans and Jansenists, &c. there was little reviling to be found in all these long Disputes.

What •f one man think that he may pray to his Angel Guardian and another saith only that he oweth Angels Love, Reverence and Gratitude, and would pray to them if he knew when they heard him, and knew it were God's will, what hurt will it do to the other man to bear with this? If we agree of all points that put men into that state in which Christ commanded to Love one another as his Disciples; if others differ from me about the meaning of five hundred Texts of Scripture, why may notlbe contented with my Knowledg and Opinion, and leave them to theirs? Why might not Nazianzene and the Council of Constantinople, Hierome and Russinus, Chrysostom and Theophilus and Epiphanius, Prosper and Cassianus and Vincentius, (to pass by Augustine and Celestine and Iulianus, and Hierome and Vigilantius and Iovinian) have composed their differences with less noise and strife, and lived in love and peace together. (To pass by also the doleful Contentions about the Councils of Ephesus and Calcedon, and Const. 5, & 6. and Nice 2. and between Ignatius and Photius, and many more worse stries since then) Why might not the Jesuites and Jansenists have differed without troubling the Popes and the Church, by mutual forbearance and gentle disputes, as many of the Schoolmen did before them? I quarrel not with Erasmus, Faber, and abundance such, for chiding the Schoolmen as Causers of Contention, by raising so many frivolous questions for Dispute: But verily, as they were in my opinion the best Philosophers that ever the World had, (and no wonder when they studied little else) so