the supposed answering of those few chosen and picked out by him must serue through the partiality of iudgement in his followers to disgrace all the rest of the Corruptions or falsifications vrged by you Animaduersion LII THe Protestants in falsly alledging the authorityes of Authours do abuse their Readers chiefly foure seuerall wayes First which is the most vsuall by concealing some part of the alledged authority SecoÌ„dly by adding some words of his owne to make the produced Authour or Father to speake like a Protestant Thirdly by transposing the words of an authority thereby to make the sense different from the Authors true meaning Fourthly by a wilfull mistaking or confusion of tymes I will exemplify these foure sorts in the wryting of D. White a great Impostour in his Scripts in his booke called The way to the true Churcâ— Well then the said Protestant in p. 119. oâ— his said Booke produceth a place out of the Rhemists to proue that the Church of Româ— can make that Scripture which is not anâ— vnmake that to be Scripture which is Scripture To proue this he produceth the Rhâ—mists (y) Gaelat 1. thus saying The Scriptures are 〈◊〉 knowne to be true neither are Christians bonâ—â— to receiue them without the attestation of thâ— Church Now heere marke the true wordâ— of the Rhemists and therein obserue his impurity of dealing committed by concealing part of the Sentence iust crossing his intended drift of vrging that authority Their true words are these The Scriptures whicâ— are indeed of the Holy Ghosts inditing being pâ—â— into the Churches triall are found proued anâ— testifyed vnto the World to be such and not maâ—â— true altered or amended by the same Since the Holy Scriptures in themselues were alwayes true before but not so knowne to be to all Christians All these are the words of the Rhemists where you see the wilfull concealement of this Parcell The Scriptures are nâ—â— made true altered or amended by the Church as also that other the Holy Scripturs in themselues were alwaies true meaning without the attestation of the Church Now all that can truly be gathered out of this authority is that the Scriptures though most sacred and true in themselues cannot be so made knowne to vs in which words lyeth the touch of the point without the Churches attestation But how farre off is this from M. Whytes vrging of this place Touching his imposture committed in â—dding of words this one place shall serue Thus then the said D. White produceth Bellarmine in contempt of the Churches authority saying Other meanes may deceiue me but nothing is more knowne nothing more certaine then the Scriptures That it were the greatest madnes in the world not te belieue theÌ„ c. Now in this sentence these words viz. Other meanes may deceiue me are not in Bellarmine but most subtily added to the begining of Bellarmines words and caused to be printed in the same kynd of Character or letter wherein the other words of Bellarmine are printed thereby to make the Reader belieue that they are words of Bellarmine wheras they are added as I about insinuated for the more depressing of the Churches Authority Now the whole sentence of Bellarmine was directed against the Swinkseldians who absolutely denyed Scripture and against whom Bellarmine in that place disputeth Touching the fraud consisting in a cuÌ„ning transposition of words without adding any words to the authority alledged or concealing any parcell therof this example of the foresaid M. Whyte may serue In pag. 344. of his way to the true Church he produceth for the ouerthrow of the religious vse of Images the Councell of Eliberis thus saying No (z) Can. 36. Picture is to be made in the Church lest that be adored which is painted on the walls But the true words of the Canon are these Placâ—â—â— picturas in Ecclesia non habere ne quod coliâ—â— adoretur in parietibus depingatur Jt pleaseth the Councell that pictures should not be in the Church lest that which is worshipped anâ— adored be painted on the Walls The nyce difference in words resteth thus Lest that which is worshipped be painted and as Mâ— Whyte translateth Lest that which is painted be worshipped Where the words of the Councell acknowledging the worship of Images maketh the worship due to them to be the cause why they are not painted on the walls to wit because they were subiect to be defaced either by inuasion of Enemyes or rayne c. Now M. Whites translation only by a subtill transposition of the words imports that Pictures are not to be worshipped at all Lastly concerning the Calumny resting in a wilfull confusion of tymes The said Protestant in pag. 61. for proofe of Priests lawfull mariage produceth a Testimony from Sinesius Bishop of Ptolemais thus writing of himselfe to a friend The sacred hand of Theophilus hath giuen me a wyfe and hereupon Iustify to all men that J will neither forsake her nor priuily as an adulterer keep her Company but I will pray to God to send me by her many and good children This Epistle is at large set downe in (a) Eccl. hist l. 14. c. 55. Nicephorus Now heere tâ—e fraud lyeth that at the tyme when this Epistle was written Sinesius was but a Lay-man but eminent for learning Now after he made himselfe priest and was created Bishop of Ptolemais he euer liued separated from the company of his wyfe as fully appeareth out of Nicephorus in the place aboue alledged Here then the Ministers deceit lyeth in applying that to him as if he had beene then Bishop which was spoken by him being a Layman and so M. White most fraudulently confoundeth those two different tymes together as if all had hapned at one and the same tyme. Animaduersion LIII YF your Aduersary will vant that he will proue all by Scripture only as most of them giue it out they will then force him to draw both his Premisses I meane both his Propositions if so they should be reduced to a forme of Argument from the Scripture alone of which Method within two Arguments at least he is certaine to fayle For if he take either of his Propositions from humane Authority or from naturall Reason you may tell him he leaueth his vndertaken of prouing by Scripture alone and consequently you may deny his force of Argument though Logicall in forme Here I further aduertize that if your Aduersary vndertake the part of an Opponent tye him precisely euer to Oppose which Scene perhaps he being brought to a Non-plus would flyely transferre vpon you In like sort if he taketh vpon him to answere suffer him not to oppose thought he labour so to do to free himselfe from answering Thus be sure that ech of you keepe your chosen Station Animaduersion LIV. IF the Protestant should seeke to expouÌ„d by way of conference of places those words of our Sauiour This is my body this is my Bloud figuratiuely by those other words of his J
Church of Christ Thou (37) Esay c. â—0 shalt sucke the milke of the Gentills and the breasts of Kings And againe it is prophesied of the Church by the Kingly Prophet J (38) Psal â— will giue thee the Heathens 〈◊〉 thy inheritance and the End of the Earth for sâ—â— thy possession Now two things are cleare the first that many Heathen Kingdomes hâ—â—e beene conuerted to Christianity by the Pope and his ministers This is proued from the coÌ„fession of D. Whitaker who acknowledging the conuersion of many Countryes made by the Church of Rome thus debaseth them The (39) Whitak l. de Eccles pag. 336. Conuersion of so many Nations after the tyme of Gregory haue not beene pure but corrupt Now that the Protestant Church neuer conuerted any Gentill King or Nation to the fayth of Christ appeareth from its coÌ„fessed Inuisibility for so many ages till Luthers tyme aboue set downe Thus then I here aâ—gue The predictions of conuerting Kings and Kingdoms to the fayth of Christ were performed by the Pope only and his Substituts and not by the Protestants Therefore the predictions for the enlarging of Christ his Church by conuerting Gentills vnto it were performed by Antichrist Christs designed Enemy How do these stand together and yet do these incompatibilityes necessarily result out of the former Assertions Animaduersion CLIV. THe example of Paphnutius his standing in the Nicene Councell in defence of Priests mariage so much insisted vpon by so many eminent Protestants is misapplied and withall in all likely hood most false It is misapplyed because where it is vrged in proofe of Priests Mariage it proueth the contrary For though perhaps Paphnutius might be persuaded that Priesthood did not dissolue Mariage afore contracted yet he sayth plainly Those (40) So relateth Socrates l. 1. ca. 8. who are made Priests before they are maried cannot after marry And this Paphnutius calleth Veterem Ecclesiae traditionem The ancient tradition of the Church So far was Paphnutius from ascribing the doctrine of Priests not marrying after the Order of Priesthood taken to the Councell of Nice Now that this example of Paphnutius is vntrue many probabilities may be vrged First because there is not so much as any Mention of this matter concerning Paphnutius made by any who did wryte of the Nicene Councell before Socrates tyme who first relateth the words of Paphnutius For neither did Eusebius Athanasius Epiphanius Theodoret nor yet Ruffinus himselfe who writ many things of Paphnutius and of the Nicene Councell all being more ancient then Socrates make any mention of this matter Now I here demaÌ„d could all these be silent in so great a busines and so earnestly debated in the Nicene Councell Secondly this example of Paphnutius seemeth to be against the third Canon of the said Nycene Councell which altogether forbiddeth Priests to haue dwelling with them any Woman other then their Mother Sister their Fathers sister their Mothers sister c. Now if as Socrates reporteth in the example of Paphnutius the Councell had left liberty for married Laymen afterwards made Priests to haue kept still their former Wynes why then was not the wyse first placed here in the exception but altogether omitted This example of Paphnutius is so much suspected to be false that Frigeuilleus (41) In his palmâ— Christiana p. 103. Ganuius a Protestant doth plainly ascribe it to the forgery of Socrates Animaduersion CLV IT will not be amisse to obserue the Protestants Method in disputing with the Catholikes touching the Reall Presence as it is taught by the Church of Rome For the Question of the Reall Presence being but propounded they quickly tell vs that Christ neuer intended or willed it which answere is made to omit all other Protestants by (42) In his Decads in English serm 8. p. 971. Bullinger And when to declare Christs Will therein we alledge his words they make then a new question of his power as denying such to be his will or sense of words vnder pretence that it is (43) So answereth whitak in his answ to M. William Reynolds pa 179. contradictory to the truth and Nature of his humane body now in Heauen and so is therby impossible And when in reply therto we proue to them directly that it is not impossible then returning per circuitum to their firster Euasion they answere that the Question (44) So answereth D. Whitak in his answere to M. Reynolds refutation pag. 192. is not of his power but only of his Will and so dancing in a round they triffle and delude vs by a subtle escape of an endles Circulation Animaduersion CLVI IT is most certaine that the doctrine of many of our Aduersaries touching the Reall Presence is inuolued with greater shew of Impossibility then our Catholike doctrine thereof is for whereas they teach that Christs reall body is really (45) So teach besides many others M. Perkins in his reformed Catholike pag. 187. and D. Fulke against the Rhâ—mish Testam in 1. Cor. 15. and truly present and yet not bodily and corporally but only Spiritually present By which word Spiritually they do not exclude the true and reall presence of his body Now how this should be free from repugnancy and meere contradiction and therfore impossible I cannot discerne For to affirme that Christs very body and not only a figure or efficacy thereof should be truly and really present and yet not bodily but spiritually present is in it selfe inexplicable and as Swinglius (46) Swimglius co 2. de vera falsa religionâ— fol. â—06 in confutation therof truly obserueth is vpon the matter no other thing then to turne his body into a Spirit For as the true substance of Christs Spirit cannot be said to be present to vs only corporally or bodily and not spiritually because it is a spirit and no Body so neither may the substance it selfe of Christs very body be said to be present to vs not bodily but only Spiritually nor at all spiritually vnlesse we do which is impertinent to the matter in hand vnderstand the word Spirituall as the Apostle doth 1. Cor. 15. because it is a true and reall body no Spirit Animaduersion CLVII VNiuersality of our Catholike Doctrine in all chiefest points dispersed througout all Nations euen by the acknowledgment of our Aduersaries as appeareth from their confessed Inuisibility of their owne Church and Religion for so many ages is a most strong Argument of the truth of our Catholike Religion My reason hereof is in that the doctrine of the Roman Church could not by any pretended corruption be deriued from that Church to so many Nations so far remote and distant ech from other Sundry of which Nations were vnknowne to the Latin Church and many of them at variance therewith in some small points Therefore from hence I conclude that our Catholike fayth was the Primitiue fayth first taught by the Apostles in all those far different Nations wherein
with the Innouatours of these times Animaduersion CLXIII I Grant that certaine Fathers forbearing somtymes vpon iust reasons though at other tymes they are most cleare therein do not speake so plainly of the Reall Presence but that some of their sayings might stand subiect to mistaking to such as conceaue not the true reason of their affected obscurity in wryting Yet cannot the ProtestaÌ„ts with any shew of integrity insist in such darke Sayings My reason is this For vpon the same ground I bouldly affirme that we may with better reason insist in the sayings of the Protestants deliuered in shew in defence of the Real Presence seing many more and more plaine seeming sayings may be alledged out of Caluin Beza and their followers in pretended proofe of our Catholike Docteine of the Reall Presence then our Aduersaryes can alledge against it out of all the Fathers For ExaÌ„ple Caluin thus saith (1) Calu. Instit l. 4. c. 17. sect 10. Etsi autem incredibile videtur c. Although it may seeme incredible that in so great a distaÌ„ce of places as of Heauen and earth the flesh of Christ should penetrate vnto vs that it may be meate for vs we must yet remember how much aboue all our senses the secret power of the holy Ghost can shew it selfe Beza sayth (2) So saith Beza with other Deuines of Geneua in their Apologia modesta ad Acta Conuentus 15. printed Geneuae 1575. Our manner of the presence of Christs body is a more admirable and euident testimony of the Diuine Omnipotency then that reall and orall manducation of the Papists Finally to omit many other such sayings of our Aduersaries D. Fulke thus hath left written The Creatures or Elements are blessed or consecrated that by the working of Gods spirit they should be changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ after a diuine and spirituall manner to the worthy receauer Now here I demand will our Aduersaries insist in some darke sayings of the Fathers for the impugning of Christs reall and true body and bloud in the Eucharist Then I auer we may with more shew of colour vrge the Protestants Testimonies euen in defence and proofe of the Reall Presence I add to this former Animaduersion a thing most worthy of obseruation that all such Sectaries as denied the Reall presence before Luthers dayes did maintaine diuers Heresies for such confessed both by Catholiks and Protestants Now the men impugning the Reall Presence were these following Berengarius Waldenses Albigenses Henry Bruts Peter Abaylardus Almericus and lastly Wicleff all maintayners of diuers Hereticall positions and opinions in the censure both of our Aduersaries and our selues Animaduersion CLXIV BOth the (3) Caluinists as D. Couell in his defence of M. Hooker art 24. p 96. D. Bilson in his true difference c. par 4. pa. 539. 592. 368. D. Whitak contra Caâ—â— rat 9. besydes other Caluinists Caluinists and Lutherans (4) Lutherans as Kempnitins in his exam part 2. p. 17. p. 53 Lobecchius in his disputat Theol. p. â—31 3â—2 and diuers others teach that the Godhead Christ Passion the Sacraments concurre in their degrees in working of Grace The Godhead as being the Principall Agent and without dishonour to Christ Passion Christ Passion as being the Instrument conioyned to the Godhead and working without dishonour thereto Lastly the Sacraments as being the separated Jnstruments conferring Grace truly in their kind by power vertue from the Godhead and Christ Passion and this without dishonour to either Now then I here vrge that if our Aduersaries do truly and according to the Scriptures acknowledg thus much due to the Sacraments and without iniury to Christs Passion why then should not the doctrine of the Masse and Sacrifice being grounded vpon euident Scriptures be holden freed from all imputation of being dishonorable vnto Christ or his Passion and yet this is one mayne obiection vrged by our Aduersaries against the B. Sacrifice of the Masse Therefore I conclude that as the Sacrifices (5) Exod. 29.36 Leuit. 7. Num. 28. c. for sinne and other Sacrifices of the Old Testament receaued their force from Christs death and Sacrifice of the Crosse then to come and without all dishonour thereto So likewise in the New Testament which is (6) Hebr. 8. established in bâ—tter promisses our now Sacrifice of the Masâ—e doth without any dishonour to Christ confer more abundant efficacy and vertue from his said death and Passion now past Animaduersion CLXV WHen the Fathers ioyntly teach that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is a true Sacrifice our Aduersaries labour to auoydâ— their authorities seuerall wayes but all in vayne First they say it may be termed a Sacrifice in that the prayers and the exercise of Fayth Hope and Charity being vsed in the celebration of this Sacramâ—nt are spiritual Sacrifices to God But this answere auayleth nothing in that the ancient Fathers plainly teach that the body and bloud of Christ is the Sacrifice which is offered vp in the Church As for example Ambrose sayth Etsi (7) Ambro in Psalm 38 Christus nunc non videtur offerre tamen ipse offertus in terris cum corpus eius offertur Againe the Fathers teach (8) See hereof the Councell of Nice Ierome Epist ad Euagrium Tertull. l. de velandis virg that only Priests and no others can offer vp this Sacrifice but it is manifest that Prayers Lauds Exercise or fayth hope and charity may as spiritual Sacrifices be offered vp by any Man or Woman Our Aduersaries further reply say that the Eucharist may be called a Sacrifice because it includeth in it selfe a certaine commemoration or representation of a true Sacrifice to wit of the death of Christ We heereto say that it is true that the Action of the Eucharist is a similitude or memoriall of the Sacrifice of the Crosse yet hence it followeth not that the Fathers thought not that a true proper sacrifice was offered vp in the celebration of the Eucharist First because Baptisme is a sacrament representing the death of Christ as the Apostle Rom. 6. teacheth yet no one Father doth tearme Baptisme a Sacrifice Secondly The Fathers do often adioyne certaine Epithets peculiar only to a true Sacrifice as Chrisostome calleth it Sacrificium verum plenum horroris But these Adiuncts are fondly giuen to a mere representiue Sacrifice Thirdly the Fathers do often vse the words Victima (9) So Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 1. l. 2. Epist. 3. c. Sacrificium in the p urall number But this phraze of speech is most improper if it should be vnderstood of the Eucharist as it is only a commemoration of the death of Christ For since only one thing is here represented therefore the name thereof is to be deliuered only in the singular number Animaduersion CXLVI IN like manner where we read that the Fathers do ascribe great reuerence to the Eucharist to wit either of
is now forbidden as a thing vngodly 11. That there are any Sacraments of the New Testament instituted by Christ for the good of mans Soule Lastly to omit some others 12. That before the ending of the world Antichrist shall come who shal be a designed Enemy of Christ and shall labour to subuert and ouerthrow all Christian Religion All these points both Protestant and Catholike do belieue and hould that the beliefe of them is necessary to Saluation And yet not any of these Articles are expressed or set downe in the Creed Whence I conclude that the Apostles Creed cannot be a sufficient boundary to containe and limit an auayleable Fayth Animaduersion LXII THe bitter Inuectiues of the Protestants one against another are of sufficient force to discouer their dissentions in doctrine as where Luther sayth We (n) Luther in Thes Cont. Louaniens Thes 21. seriously iuâ—ge the Swinglians and Sacramentaries to be Heretiks and Aliens from the Church of God And to confront this Swinglius thus retorteth vpon Luther Luther (o) Swingl tom 2. in resp ad Luther fol 458. is guilty of high blasphemy against the nature and essence of God c. To descend to the Puritans and Protestants in England we find that the booke entituled Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall printed anno â—604 doth ipso facto excommunicate the Puritans for their maintaining of these positions following as they are there set downe in the Booke The worship of the Church of England is corrupt superstitions vnlawfull repugnant to the Scriptures The Articles of the Bishops Religion are Erroneous their Rites Antichristian c. Now the Protestants do thus râ—quite the Puritans saying The (p) M. Powell in hâ—s consiâ—erations Puritans are notorious and manifest Schismaticks cut of from the Church And againe The (q) M. Paâ—ks in his Ep. Deâ—ic Puritans seeke to vndermyne the foundation of fayth Now add hereto that although infinite other passages might be brought to shew the great discord in fayth among the forraine Protestants yet there is no one more short Argument to conuince this point then to recur to the foure Catalogues of ProtestaÌ„t Books set downe in the later end of the Booke called The Protestants Apology of the Roman Church In which 4. Catalogues one may find about three hundred Bookes written in great acerbity of stile by one Protestant against another The names of all which books are taken out of Coccius his Thesaurus or from Hospinian both which Authouâ—s dyed many yeares since Now if so mâ—â—y Bookes of disagreements in fayth among the Protestants were made within so sport a Tyme how many hundred more might be alledged if one did know all other Bookes written by the Protestant against the Protestant since the death of those two former men Animaduersion LXIII MAny vulgar and vnlearned Protestants and especially the Caluinists Puritans do condemne the Catholike Roman Religion because it defendeth and practizeth diuers Ceremonyes they ignorantly tearming such Ceremonyes Idolatrous and superstitious And there is no one argument more preuayling with such men to auert them from our Catholike Religion theâ— this Now to take a way this scandall oâ— stumbling block I say that if it were God good pleasure to haue his Fayth and Religion of the old Testament which for the tyme was the true Religion to consisâ— much in Ceremonyes as we see it did faâ—â— out in the seuerall Sacrifices appoynted by God In the Tabernacle with the appurtenances and of what matter number and qualityes all things should be as also with prouiâ—ion of Oyle and Lampes The Arke The propitiatory the Consecration of priests the Institution of all vestures vessels and other holy things then belonging to the seruice of God all these to be made performed and done after a strange and different manner as we reade in Exodus As also the Institution of Circumcision consisting in paring away a piece of flesh which serued for freeing Man in that tyme from Originâ— Sinne the preparing and eating of the Paschall Lambe sprinkling the dores with the bloud thereof and infinit other Ceremonies recorded in the foresaid booke of Exodus I say if this was Gods vnsearcheable Will to ordaine these things during the tyme of the Old Law wherein he would haue the Honour Seruice and worship exhibited to â—im partly to consist why then may not our Sauiour institute the Religion fayth of Christians belieuing in him to be attended on with diuers Ceremonyes and yet this without any Superstition or Idolatry Now our Aduersaryes common euasion to this our Argument is to say that God instituted Ceremonyes in the Old Law to serue as figures or Types of things which were after to fall out in the New Law which Ceremonyes were theÌ„ to end vpon the promulgation of the fayth of Christ. This answeare is most impertinent First because not all the Ceremonyes in the Old Law but only some did serue as figures or Adumbrations of things to happen in the New Testament Secondly because the Question heere is not why or to what end the Ceremonyes of the Old Law were instituted but only whether Ceremonyes tending to the worship of God be pious lawfull Therefore I conclude that seeing the Ceremonies in the Old Law were instituted by Gods direction for the worship of him as we read in Exodus c. 8 Ostendas populo Caeremonias ritus colendi let the other secondary end of them be what it will that therefore and by force of Gods proceeding in the Old Law we Christians may not thinke strange that our Sauiour being God and Man would now in the New Law institute and giue to his Church the like power some Ceremonies and pâ—blike Rites wherewith he will be worshipped and wherin part of Christian religion shall consist Now therefore let our Aduâ—â—saries if they can giue any true reasoâ— why the Ceremâ—nies of the Old Law bâ—ing incomparably more in number shall be accounted lawfull and yet the Ceremonies of the New Law or Testament as long as they are reputed but Ceremonies must be râ—puted superstitions aâ— Idolatrous Animaduersion LXIV WE Catholikes charge the Protestaâ—â—â— with ancient Heresies For example wâ— shew how the Manichees according to S Austin depriued Man (r) L. de Haeres cap. 4â— of Freewill Hoâ— â—ouinian (s) Ier. l 1. cont Iâ—â—in Aug l. Haeres cap. taught that Fasting was not mâ—ritorious and Virginity was no better theâ— wedlock or mariage How Aerius (t) Austin l. de Haeres c. 33. taugâ— it to be most vnlawfull to pray or offerâ—â— Sacrifice for the Dead How the Arians (u) L. 1. cont Marin cap. â— reiected all vnwritten Traditions who aâ—â—â— (x) Athanas in Apolog. pro fuga perpetrated Sacrilege against the Sacraments Altars Priests and Religious person How the (y) Austin l. â— Vnitate cap. 12. Donatists taught the Churcâ— of Christ to be Jnuisible How the Deniall 〈◊〉 the Reall Presence was condemned by certaine ancient Heretiks
Some aduerse to Mans naturall propension as the Doctrines of Virginity Pouerty Obedience most of them consisting not only in an internall beliefe but euen in an externall action and operation and therefore the first entrance of them are become thereby most discernable Such are the Doctrines of praying to the Saints of praying vpon beades Pilgrimage single life in the Clergy and to omit diuers others all Monachisme And lastly some supposing their doctrine to be false subiect to externall Idolatry as the worshipping of Christ with supreme honour in the Eucharist Here then I conclude that if any man shall affirme that these Doctrines could stealingly creep into Gods Church without all resistance of its Pastous Doctours and Fathers and without any mention recorded of their first entrance that Man not only giues the lye openly to the Holy Scripture in seuerall place◠witnessing the contrary but that withall he ceaseth to be a man by loosing wholy the naturall light of all humane discourse and Reason Animaduersion CXVIII IT is most cleare that the Heresies rising in the beginning of the primitiue Church as the Heresies of the Valentinians Tationists Manichees Arians and diuers others as also the Heresies of the foresaid Heretikes before S. Gregories tyme are recordeth both by the ancient Fathers and euen by the Centurists our Aduersaries In lyke sort the Heresies of Berengarius Waldo Wicleffe c. are also registred That this is most true I proue from the Centurists who in the fift Chapter of euery seuerall Century from Osiander in his Centuries from Pantaleon the Protestant in his Cronology haue recorded all the said ancient Heresies And as for Berengarius Lanfrancus Guitmundus and Algeru◠make mention of his Heresy Waldo is recorded by (i) In his Catalog testium veritatis Illiricus as also by Osiander (k) In Epitom histor Eccles Wicleff by M. Fox as also by Stow and by Wicleffs owne writings as is aboue shewed This then being most true and indeniable I thus infer Seeing it is manifest that the Heresies rysing within the first foure hundred yeares the Heresies budding vp the next two hundred yeares the Heresies hatched in euery age during the last thousand yeares are most largly recorded partly in the wrytings of the ancient Fathers in particular and set Tracts against them partly in the Canons of Generall Councells condemning them partly by the obseruing diligence of Ecclesiasticall Historiographers whose designed labour is to transmit and commend ouer to after ages the true state of Christs Church in former ages and partly by the Protestants like endeauours who haue written seuerall Volumes of this very subiect Seing I say all this is manifest can it then enter into any brayne but to weene that so many Articles of the present Roman Religion being in number far more then all the aboue rehearsed in weight and consequence greatly exceeding them for diuersity of Countryes and Nations far further diuulged and spread then all or any of the former Heresies euer were most of these others being restrayned only to one Country or Nation could euer so vnespiedly infect the whole Church of Christ with their Contagion and worke a more notorious change therein then euer yet was wrought by all the Heretiks since Christs tyme put together And yet not one Father Pastour or Doctor of those times either to take notice of any of those supposed Heresies or knowing them not to impugne the first assaults by preaching or writing neither any one Ecclesiasticall History but to mention in their Histories any one of the said Articles or Innouations in fayth Can this I say be imagined or can it be in the power of man thus to create a new Religion at his pleasure without controule or discouery To mantaine this is to maintayne an assertion against all probability against all reason against all possibility Animaduersion CXIX THe Greeke Church hath beene for many ages emulous of the Church of Rome and therefore if the present Church of Rome had anciētly made any diuision or Schisme from the true Church of Christ the Grecian no doubt would haue been most apt to recōmend the memory of such a chāge in our Church to all after ages in their Historyes But no such records we find in any of their writings Yea the Grecians are so farre from that as that on the contrary side the present Church of Rome is able to specify and note out of most auncient and approued Authours the very tymes when the Grecians introduced those particular Opiniōs wherein at this day they dissent from our Roman and Catholike Church For example to insist in some few The Grecians deniall of their Obedience to the Church of Rome was first begunne by Iohn of Constantinople and was written against by Gregory (l) Greg. l. 4. Ep. 34. 36 the Great and Pelagius (m) Pelag in his Epistle vniuersis Episcopis Their deniall of the proceeding of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne tooke it beginning about the yeare 764. was gain-said and contradicted at its first rysing as (n) In System Theol. p. 68. Kekermanus a Protestant witnesseth Their Deniall of Prayer for the Dead was begunne by Aerius and impugned by Epiphanius (o) Epiph Haeres 75 and Austin (p) Aug. Haeres 53 Finally their bringing in of Leauenes Bread by the Grecians in the celebration of the Eucharist was first begunne about the yeare 1053. as appeareth out of the wrytings of Leo (q) In Epist ad Michael Episcopum Constan. cap. 5. the Nynth and the (r) Cent. 11. cap. 8. Centurists Now heere I demand Can it be imagined that these Innouations of the Grecians being few in number could be so precisely contradicted gain-said and left registred to all Posterity and yet this supposed chāge of the Church of Rome consisting in bringing in of farre more Articles in number and as of great consequence should neuer be noted nor impugned by any one Doctour or Father nor recorded nor obserued by any one Historiographer the said Fathers and Historiographers liuing in the very same Ages wherein this supposed alteration is said to haue happened Animaduersion CXX IT is certaine that what generall propension Nature or rather God himselfe by Nature as by his Instrument hath ingrafted in all mē the same is in it selfe most true certaine and warrantable since otherwise it would follow that God should insert in the Soule of Man idly vainly and as directed to no end certaine naturall impressiōs and instinctions which to affirme is most derogatory to his diuine maiesty and wisedome and repugnant to that auncient receaued Axiome God and Nature worke nothing in vayne Now to apply this against our Neutralists in Religion who thinke a Man may be saued in any Religion We fynd according hereto both by History experience that diuers zelous and feruent professours of all Religions whatsoeuer both true and false haue beene most ready to expose their liues in defence of