I gather that Victor out of his elation pride first chalenged that Primacy to him ouer all churches which your Popes at this day still vsurp and retaine This Pope Victor being one of those who couet ' aiem ' aristcucin cai ' yperochòn ' émmenai ' allon to aduance himselfe as the best and cheifest aboue all other Bishops CARD BELLARM. You do much disaduantage your selfe in alleadging this example considering the time wherein Victor liued to wit in the yeare 198. An age during the which your selfe hath hertofore confessed that the church â—f Rome did suffer no alteration in her Religion Now M. Doctour wheras you cast an aspersion of pride vpon this most ancient and reuerend Pope I wish you take heede that you do not incurre the censure passed vpon Diogenes who is said to haue reprooued Plato his pride with greater pride D. WHITAKERS It is certaine that many churches and Fathrs were offended with Victors proceeding therein and particulerly that ancient and pious Father Irenaeus which is an infallible argument of Victors vsurpation For if Victor had true power to excommunicate the churches of Asia as it is graunted he actually had why should Irenaeus and those churches be offended or reprehend him for putting onely in execution his lawfull Authority CARD BELLARM. You must call to minde here M. Doctour the reason why Victor did excommunicate the Churches of Asia which was because the Bishops of Asia were vnwilling to conforme themselues to the Church of Rome in keeping of Easter day to wit to keepe it onely vpon Sunday whereas they would needs continue the keeping of it vpon the 14. of the Moone according to the custome of the Iewes Now for this their reluctation herein against the Church of Christ Victor did excommunicate them But when this seemed as being but a Ceremony and for a time tollerated through the weaknes of the Iewes in the iudgment of diuers too smal an occasion to excommunicate and cut off so many famous Churches therfore Victor was censured by diuers to be ouer seuere in prosecuting with so great a punishment so smal a seeming fault From which their thus censuring of Victor we may rather gather his Primacy aboue other Churches then otherwise and the reason hereof is because we do not finde any of the sayd Bishops to charge Victor with any Innouation in vnduely assuming to himselfe this Authority ouer other Churches which doubtlesly they would haue done if Victor had first taken this priuiledge to himselfe they being so iustly prouoked thereto but they did onely rebuke as is sayd his ouermuch rigid seuerity in punishing as they thought so rigorously so smal a disobedience in the Bishops of Asia Yea which is more that Irenaeus who was most forward in taxinge Victor with his sharp proceeding ascribeth to Victor a soueraignety ouer all Churches For besides that Irenaeâ—s is reprehended by the Centurists for acknow ledging the Primacy of the Roman Sea Eusebius thus writeth of Irenaeus touching this point Irenaeus admonisheth Victor by letters that he would not for the obseruation of a Tradition so long vsed quite cut of so many Churches from the body of the Vniuersall Church Thus Eusebius Now I here demand why should Irenaens dissuade Victor from excoÌ„municating those Churches but that he was persuaded that Victor had power to excommunicate them And thus farre of this instance which may be of force perhaps to prooue that Victor was ouer seuere but not that he had not true power ouer other Churches for which point it is by you M. Doctour vrged But I pray you passe to other instances onely here by the way I will put you in minde that careles and obstinate Christians and such it well may be some of those Asian Christians were haue in some respect small reason to feare the excommunication of the Pope since these men through such their disobediency do commonly excommunicate themselues D. WHITAKERS It is cleare that Zozimus Bonifacius and Celestinus all Bishops of Rome did chalenge superiority ouer other Bishops by forging of a Canon of the Nicene Councell Which proceeding manifesteth the then vsurped Authority of those Popes to be contrary to the institution of Christ Thus these your Popes thirsted after all domination and Power though at other times rhey made shew by styling theÌ„selues Serui Seruorum and by their other affected Humility to contemne all honours and eminency Cur vultis esse in mundo qui extra mundum estis CARD BELLARM. It is most strange to see how inconsiderately you proceed For here you say that these Popes first introduced this innouatios of the Superiority of the Bishop of Rome ouer other Churches and immediatly afore and with all one breath you ascribe the beginning thereof to Victor who liued two hundred yeares before any of these three Popes If these later Popes brought it in then Victor did not If Victor did begin it then those Popes could not See how irreconciliable these your two Assertions are From the actions of all which Popes you can truely gather that they onely practised an Authority which the Church of Rome euer had but not that they assumed any soueraignty to them which poynt is only in q 〈…〉 estion which afore that Church had not D. WHITAKERS M. D. Fulke conspireth with me in alledging the foresaid examples and he was a man well conuersant in Ecclesiasticall Histories his words are these Zozimus Bonifacius Celestinus did challeng prerogatiue ouer the Bishop of Afrik by forging a false CanoÌ„ of the Nicene CouÌ„cel And this Doctours indgmenâ— I much pryze in matters of controuersyes CARD BELLARM. Both D. Fulke his iudgment how learned soeuer you repute him and your owne also must of necessity yeald to the truth herein seing the example of Victor afore infisted vpon by you doth vindicate and free these three later Popes from all innouation in this poynt And as touching the supposed forging of a Canon of the Nicene Councell for the erection of the Primacy of Rome It is most false for euen your owne wryters to wit Caluin himselfe and Peter Martir do mention the said Canon as truly made Only they say that the Popes did misalleadge this decree as made by the Councell of Nice which was made by the Councell of Sardis And so their Error admitting that they did erre consisteth only in mistaking by whether Councell the said Canon was decreed D. VVHITAKER What say you of Boniface the third It is certain that this Boniface the third was then the first that intituled the Roman Church to be caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches CARD BELLARM. M. Doctour you weary me by idly diuerberating the ayre with these impertinent Examples and force me to entertayne them with a fastidious neglect For do not the former Examples of Victor Zozimus Bonifacius the first of that name and Celestiuus all more ancient then this Boniface the third take away the weight
points touching fayth and Religion and different from the then Roman fayth wherewith Waldo Wicklefe Hus c. were then charged would be professed beleâ—ued and mantayned in these dayes by the enemyes of the Church of Rome And therefore it necessarily followeth that the accusations passed in former times vpon Waldo Wicklefe Hus and the rest are either in generall true or in generall false If false then haue we no sufficient Records that there were any in those dayes who beleiued any points of protestancy If true then certayne it is that as Waldo Wicklefe Hus c. mantayned some points of protestancy so with all that they mantayned diuers explorate Heresies and acknowledged for such both by Catholicks and Protestants Secondly the Pamphleter obiected in the Catholicks name in this sort None of all those which hitherto haue beene named or can be named meaning for Protestants but in some knowne confessed and vndowbted Opinions did varye from you And therefore they and you Protestants may not be said to be all of one Church This difficulty he salueth with a most impudent and bare denyall saying All those whom before I haue named did generally for all mayne Matters teach the same Which we now teach What forhead or shame hath this Man For First as touching Waldo Wiclef Hus and their followers in whom through out this Pamphlet the Authour principally insisteth It is confessed by Osiander Luther Fox and other Protestants as also it appeareth by some of their owne Wrytings that they agreed with the Catholicks in most points of Catholicke Religion which were of greatest moment as in the Reall Presence seuen Sacrements praying to Saincts Purgatory frewill Merit of Works and in all other most principall Articles of the present Roman Religion Concerning the proufe of all which poynts I remit the Reader to the Former Dialogue Secondly touching other obscure Men alledged by the Pamphleter for Protestants he commonly and for the most part some two or three excepted exemplifieth no other Article of Protestancy defended by them then their disobedience and inueighing against the Bishop of Rome But if he could haue iustly auerred them for Protestants in all chiefe Articles why would he not as well particulary set the said Articles of Protestancy downe as he did the other touching their disclayming from the authority of the Bishop of Rome Ad hereto that many are produced for Protestants by this Authour only for their sharply speaking and writing against the manners and conuersation of the Cleargy in those dayes they not dissenting from the doctrine of the then Church of Rome in any one article whatsoeuer euer euen ackuowledging the Primacy of that Sea To all the former poynts I may adioyne this following Consideration That supposing the forsaid alledged Men were protestants in all poynts yet do they not proue the Visibility of the true Church of Christ for these Reasons ensuing First because they were but few in number and in regard of such their paucity the Predictions of the amplitude largnes and continuall splendour of Christ Church could not be performed in that small number Touching which predictions peruse the beginning of the Dialogue Secondly because neither this Authour nor any other Protestant liuing how learned soeuer can proue that there were in those tymes specified by this Pamphleter any Administration of the Word and Sacraments practized by any of these supposed Protestants which euer necessarily concurs to the existence and being of the true Church as is demonstrated in the former Tract Thirdly because the former Men could but serue for instances during their owne lyues and no longer The Pamphleter not being able to name any one Man for a Protestant for the space of many Ages and Centuryes together which poynt being so impugneth not only the Nature of Christs true Church which must at all tymes and ages be most visible but also it crosseth the Title of this Pamphlet wherein the Authour vndertaketh to proue the Visibility of his Church in all Ages Thus far now Good Reader I haue labored in surueighing this Idle Pamphlet Now for they better memory I will breifly recapitulate and repeate certaine chiefe impostures and deceatefull deportements practized by this Authour throughout his Booke And then I will remit both him and his Treatise to they owne impartiall Iudgment 1. First then I may remember his putting no name to his Booke nor taking any Notize of the then late Conference in London touching the Visibility of the Protestant Church nor once naming M. Fisher and M. Sweete the two then disputants Which concealed Cours our Pamphleter purposly affected in all probability seing otherwise he might well thinke that the setting of his owne Name downe especially if the Authour were either D. Whyte or D. Featly or hauing in this discours particular reference to the foresaid Disputation might sooner draw on an answere to his Pamphlet from one of the said two Fathers or from some other Priest 2. Secondly You may call to mynd that in the first part of his Treatise he laboreth to proue rather the Inuisibility of the true Church then the Visibilitie thereof contrary to the Inscription of his Pamphlet cheifly to intimate thereby that a continuall Visibility of the true Church is not so necessarily to be exacted as we Catholicks do teach it is and consequently that what few weake mayâ—ied and imperfect proufs and examples for the continuance of protestancy he was after to alledge the same might be thought sufficient and strong enough for the establishing of his owne Churches Visibility 3. Thirdly The pamphleter callengeth any one for a Protestant who did but hould one or two Articles of protestancy and especially if he did but impugne the Popes authority or did wryte against the Manners conuersation of the Cleargy of those dayes though otherwyse he did agree with the Church of Rome in all Articles of fayth 4. Fourthly He callengeth those for protestants who were condemned by the Church of Rome for other Errours then are mantayned by the protestants so making the ignorant Reader beleiue that the Pope in those dayes condemned only the doctrines of Protestants for Heresies this the pamphleter doth to the end that the number of the professours of his Church in those dayes might seeme the greater in his Readers eye 5. Fyftly he most cauteously concealeth the Catholicke doctrynes euer beleiued by Hus Wiclefe Waldo c. as also sic most falsly extenuateth such Heresies as they mantayned are acknowledged for Heresies euen by learned protestaÌ„ts The Treatizer subtelly forbearing to name or set downe in expres Words any one of their Heresies 6. Sixtly For want of better Authours he fleeth to the testimonyes euen of Poëts as Chaucer Daâ—â—es Petrarch vrging them for protestants only by reason of their Satyrs written against the supposed abuses of Rome 7. Seauently he most impertinently dilateth and spreadeth hymselfe in long and tedious discourses touching the increase of the Doctrine of Waldo Hus Wiclef
of you the second time for all the Protestants do not precisely consent herein how longe do you thinke that the Church of Rome did continue in her Verginall state and Purity without any stayne in her Faith D. WHITAKERS I thinke that during the first six hundred yeares after Christ the Church was pure florishing and inuiolably taught and defended the Fayth deliuered by the Apostles During all which ages the Church of Christ in respect of truth in Faith and Religion was as I may say in the full assent of the wheele And although to speake by resemblance there are found euen many irregularities in the regular motions of the Heauens yet I am fully perswaded that for the space of the first six hundred yeares no annomalous exorbitancies of errours or superstition did accompany the heauenly preaching of the Ghosple in the Church of Christ CARD BELLARM. M. Doctour indeed part of what you here say are your owne words in your booke against D. Sanders and you deale more liberally herein then diuers of your Breehren by affording a hundred and fifty yeares more to the true Church then most of them will allow Now you granting the purity of Faith to continue in the Church of Rome for the space of the first six hundred yeares after Christ do withall implicitly and inferentially grant that no change of Faith was made in that Church within the compasse of the afore mentioned 160. yeares seeing the said 160. yeares are included within the first six hundred yeares as being part of them But to proceed further you are here M. Doctour to call to minde what your selfe at other times no doubt at vnawares haue writen I do finde to instance only in some two or three points that you affirme that Victor who liued anno 160. after Christ was the first that exercised iurisdictō vpon forraine Churches That not Cyprian only who liued anno 240. to vse your owne words but almost all the most holy Fathers of that time were in errour touching the Doctrine of good works as thinking so to pay the paine due to sinne to satisfy Gods iustice Finally that Leo who was Pope anno 440. to speake in your owne dialect was a great Architect of the Antichristian kingdome Are not all these your assertions M. Doctour D. WHITTAKERS I cannot but acknowledge them for mine since they are extant to be read in my owne bookes loath I am to be so vnnaturall as to disauow or abandon any issue begotten on my owne brayne CARD BELLARM. Marke well then M. Doctour my deduction If the Chucrh of Rome remayned in her purity of Fayth without any change for the first six hundred yeares for your owne confessiō aboue expressed is that the Church of Christ so long continued a chast and intemerate Spouse And if as your owne penne hath left it written the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy was taught by Victor the first The doctrine of Merit of Works was mainteyned by Cyprian generally by other Fathers of that age and to be short if Leo were a great Architect of the kingdome of Antichrist you meaning of our present Roman Religion all which said Fathers to wit Cyprian Victor Leo and the rest did liue diuers ages before the sixt age or Century to what time you extēd the purity of the Faith of the Church of Rome doth it not then ineuitably result out of your owne Premisses if al this be true as you affirme it is that the doctrin of the Popes Supremacy the doctrine of merit of workes and our Catholicke Doctrine generally taught by Antichrist as you tearme the Pope were no innouations but the same pure doctrines which the Apostles first plāted in the Church of Rome Se how your felfe through your owne inaduertēcy hath fortified the truth of that doctrine which your selfe did intende to ouerthrow And thus farre to show that their neuer was made any chāg of Fayth in the Church of Rome prooued from the distribution diuision of those two different times which by the learned Protestants acknowledgments do contayne the Periods of the Church of Rome her continuance in the true Fayth of the Publicke and generall Profession of our now present Romane Fayth D. WHITTAKERS My L. Cardinall Whereas you haue produced seuerall testimonies from our owne learned Protestāts who teach that in the second third fourth age after Christ such such an Article of the Papists Religion had it beginning It seemeth in my iudgment that these their authorities do more preiudice then aduantage your cause Since such testimonies if so you will stand to them do shew a beginning though most anciēt of those doctrines after the Apostles deaths and consequently a change of Faith in the Church of Rome For if you will admit the authorities of the Protestants granting the antiquities of the present Romish Religion in those former times you are also by force of reason to admit their like authorities in saying that at such tymes and not before those Articles were first taught for seing both these points are deliuered by the Protestants in one the same sentence or testimony why should the one part thereof be vrged for true and the other reiected as false MICHAEAS M. Doctour Here with my L. Cardinall and your owne good licence I am to make bould to put in a word or two This your reply M. Doctour by way of inference may seeme to lessen the antiqurty of our ancient Iewish Law and therfore I hold my selfe obliged to discouer the weakenes therof though not out of desire to entertaine any contestation with you Grant then that some miscreants or Heathen Writers as Enemies to the Law of Moyses affirme that the Religion of the Iewes had it beginning in the tyme of Esdras for example This their testimony may iustly be alleaged to prooue that our Iewish Law was as auncient at least as Esdras but it cannot be alleadged to prooue that our Law tooke it first beginning at that time only and not before in the dayes of Moyses Therefore in the Authorities of this Nature produced from our Aduersaries writinges we are to distinguish and seuer that which the Aduersaries granteth in the behalfe of vs from that which he affirmeth to his owne aduantage What he grāteth for vs against himselfe so farre we are to embrace his authority seing it may be presumed that ordinarliy no learned man would confesse any thing against himselfe his Religion but what the euidency of the truth therein enforceth him vnto and therefore one of the ancient Doctours of your Christian Church if I do remember his words in this respect said well I will strike the Aduersaryes with their owne weapons But what the Aduersary affirmeth in fauour of his owne cause and against vs their we are not to stand to his own authority since no man is to be a witnes in his owne behalfe and it well may be presumed that such his sentence
signify three yeares and a halfe which short compasse of tyme cannot in any sort be applyed to the Bishop of Reme as Antichrist teaching the present Roman Religion seeing he hath coÌ„tinued preaching the sayd Doctrine Religion euen by the Protestants confessions as now I see many hundred of yeares But good my Lord Cardinall if there be any other reasons behinde to impugne this sayd change I would intreate your Lordship to descend to them for in matters of great importance variety seldome breedeth satiety CARD BELLARM. I am willing therto And for the further prosecution therof I am to put you in mind M. Doctour partly according to my former Method set downe in the beginning that wheras the Professours of the Church of Rome were in the Apostles dayes the true Church of Christ as is aboue on all sides confessed and consequently the most ancient Church since truth is euer more ancient then falsehoode and Errours It therfore followeth that all Hereticks whatsoeuer who make choyse of any new doctrine in Fayth do make a reuolt and seperation from that Church of the Apostles according to those words of S. Iohn exierunt a nobis they went out of vs and answerably to that other text certaine that went forth from vs which very words do contayne a Brande or Note vpon the Authour of euery Heresy Since the Apostle and the Euangelist do meane hereby that euer first Hereticke goeth out from a more aucient society of Christians then by him is chosen So as to go out of a precedent Church or society of Christians is not only an infallible note of Heresy in the iudgment of Vincentius Lyrinensis quis vnquam Haereses instituit nisi qui priùs ab Ecclesiae Câ—â—boli ae Vniuer sitatis antiqnitatis consensione discreâ—â—it but euen by your owne Brethren for we finde Osiander among others thus to write Nota Haeretici ex Ecclesia progrediuntur Thus do Hereticks euer forsake the generall most ancient company of Christians as smale Brooks do often leaue the common channell of the mayne Riuer Now here I demaÌ„d of you M. Doctour to shew from what company or society of Christians more ancient did we Catholicks in those former tymes when first you say this chaÌ„ge of Faith was made depart or from what Church afore in being went we out The euidency of this Note is manifested in Caluin Luther the Waldenses the Wicliffians and all other ancient acknowledged Sectaries of whom it is confessed that all of them were originally Members of our Catholicke Church and by their making choise of particuler Doctrines so Iudas the Apostle who departing from the company of the Apostls after became Iudas the Traitour did go and depart out of the present Roman Church and therby became Hereticks The like M. Doctour I do here expect that you should prooue by authority of Ecclesiasticall Histories of the present Catholicke and Romane Church which if you cannot then is the inference most strong that the present Church of Rome neuer made any such reuolt from or departing out of that Church which was established by the Apostles at Rome and consequently that the present Church of Rome neuer suffered any change in Fayth since it first being a Church D. WHITAKERS Your Church hath departed from that Fayth which the Apostles first preached in Rome and I hope this departure and going out without other proofs is sufficient enough And here I answere with M. Newstubâ— one of our learned Brethren That when you require who were they that did note your going out c. This question I say is vnvecessary c. we haue taken you with the manner that is to say with the Doctrine diuerse from the Aposties and therfore neither Law nor Conficience can force vs to examen them who were witnesses of you first departing Thus my Brother M. Newstubs And my Lord as it is far better for one to haue a cleare sight then to enioy the best helps for curing a bad sight so we here prefer the truth of the Doctrine first preached at Rome by the Apostles and manifested vnto vs by the perspicuity of the scripture before all humane reasons and arguments directed to the discouerie of Romes after embraced Innouation CARD BELLARM. What strang Logicke is this and how poore a Circulation do you make The mayne question betweene vs is whether the present Church of Rome hath changed it Fayth or no since the Apostles dayes To prooue that it hath not Iverge that the professours therof did neuer go out of any more ancieÌ„t Church and consequently euer retayned without change it former Fayth Now you in answere hereto as not being able to instance the persons by whom or the tymes when any such departing or going out was made by the Professours of our Religion reply that it Doctrine is different from the Doctrine of the Apostles and therfore the Church of Rome hath changed it Religion since the Apostles tymes and this sophism you know is but Petitio Principij or a beginning of the matter in question and is nothing els but without answering to any of my premisses the denyall of my Conclusion which kynd of answenng I am sure impugneth all Logicke and therfore all Reason since Logicke is but Reason sublimated and refined But to proceed further In euery introduction of a new Religion or broaching of any innouation in Doctryne the Professours therof receaue a new denomination or name for the most part from the first authour of the new doctryne and sometymes from the Doctrine its selfe like vnto a running riuer which commonly taketh the name of that riuer into which it falleth Thus the Arians the Valentinians Marcionists Manicheans from Arius Valentinus Marcian and Manicheus c. or from the doctrine it selfe as the Hereticks Monothelites Agnoitae Theopaschitae c. though this more seldome This Note or Marke of imposing a new name of the Professours of euery arrising Heresy may be exemplified in all Heresies without exception ingendred since the Apostles tymes euen to this day a poynt so exempt from all doubt as that your learned Man M. Doctour Feild thus writeth Surely it is not to be denyed but that the naming after the names of Men was in the time of the Primatiue Church peculiar and proper to Hereticks and Schismaticks with whom agreeth M. Parks both of them borrowing it from the ancieÌ„t Fathers and particulerly from Chrysostome who thus saith Prout Haeresiarchae nomen it a Secta vocatur Well then this being thus acknowledged on all sides If the present Church of Rome hath made a change from her first Primatiue Fayth then the Professours therof by introducing of new Heresies and Opinions became Heretickes and consequently they haue taken according to our former grounde some name either from the first broachers of these new Doctrines or from the doctrines themselues But you cannot M. Doctour shew any such name to be imposed vpon vs
the Church of Rome since the Apostles dayes Which Position is indeed the iuncture without which the whole frame almost of all other Controuersies hang loose Doctour Whitakers vndertaks to proue the Contrary In whom rather then in any other Protestant I haue peculiarly and ex professo made choyce to personate all the speeches and arguments vsed to proue this supposed change in the Church of Rome principally because there is no Protestant wryter that I know who hath so much prosecuted this presumed change as Doctour Whitakers hath done as appeareth in his Bookes agaynst the Cardinall himselfe agaynst Father Campion that blessed Saint and cheifly against Duraeus where the Doctour vndertaketh to instance diuers examples of this imaginary Reuolt Yet here you are to conceaue that I haue not so dwelled in the only wrytings of Doctour Whitakers as that I neglect what other Protestants haue also written in maintenance of this change for I assure you I haue omitted nothing of Moment which I could fynd in their Bookes to be obiected in proofe thereof though Doctour Whitakers is introduced to deliuer or speake it And withall I haue made speciall references to their Books where such their sentences or authorities are to be found And yet learned Men notwithstanding all that which can be vrged by any of them in this behalfe sooner shall they prooue that the fixed starrs haue changed their postures situations in their Orbe then that Rome hath changed it fayth So true are those words of an auncient Father Vetus Roma ab antiquis temporibus habere rectam fidem semper eam retinet What sentences authorities or instances of change Doctour Whitakers hath vsed in any of his Bookes by me alledged the same I haue set downe with citation of the Books and in a seuerall Character from that which he speaketh at large in the person of a Protestant and this to the end that the Reader may seuer the Doctours owne words from the words of a Protestant in generall In like sort what intemperate speeches euen loaded with malice and rancour the Doctourâ—seth â—seth against the Church of Rome are not by me forged and fathered vpon him But are especially those which are most virulent his owne words yet extant in his Bookes and accordingly they are printed in a different letter with the Latin words set in the margent So carefull I am not to wrong the Doctour by vniustly obtruding vpon him any scurrilous and vndecent Inuectiues or Pasquills The Conclusion consisteth in retorting that vpon our Aduersartes where with they here charge the Church of Rome I meane in demonstrating that it is the Protestant who hath made in fayth this change and innouation from the auncient fayth of the Apostles And thus by comparing these two contrary fayths doctrines together and the antiquity of the one and innouation of the other you shall find that errour is best knowne by truth as death is knowne bylife Now here your ingenuities are to suppose for the tyme that Cardinall Bellarmine and Doctour Whitakers are at this present liuing In like sort that the Cardinall hath read all bookes written either in Latin or English which are in this Dialogue alleadged Which like supposalls you are also to make in the other subsequent Dialogues touching the Persons in them produced as that they are now liuing and that they all liued at one tyme c. All which imaginations are fully iustifiable in the true methode of Dialogues since in this kind of writing the Persons you know are forged for the matter and not the matter for the Persons And thus much touching the first Dialogue Now to descend to the second Dialogue The subiect wherof is to demonstrate that the visibility of the Protestant Church cannot be iustifyed from the Primitiue Church much lesse from the Apostles dayes till Luthers reuolt And which is more that not any one Man during all that long Period of tyme nor Luther himselfe can be truly insisted vpon for a perfect absolute Protestant and such as the present Church of England can or will acknowledge to be a member of it Which point being once euicted How deadly it woundeth the Protestants may easily appeare in regard of the euer necessary and vndeniable visibility of Christs true Church whose expansion enlargment and vneclypsed radiancy at all tymes is much celebrated in Holy writ Her sunne shall not be set nor her Moone hid as will more fully appeare bereafter in it due place The interlocutours are the foresayd Michaeas the Iew Ochinus who first in King Edward the sixt his dayes did diseminate Protestancy at least seuer all points of Protestancy here lâ— England Doctour Reynolds of Oxford and Neuserus chiefe Pastour of Heidelberg in the Palatinate Why Ochinus Neuserus are brought in as speakers in this Dialogue the Argument prefixed therto will show I haue presumed to incorporate most of what can be vrged for the visibility of the Protestant Church in Doctour Reynolds as a Man who was best able in his dayes to support his owne Church from ruyne And sutably herto the supposed place of this disputation is Oxford I haue in no sort wronged the Doctour whom I well know to haue bene a blazing Comet in your Euang elicall spheare to whom as being of good temperance in his writings in respect of his brother Doctour Whitakers I am vnwtlling to ascrybe too litle only I wish his fauorits had not ascrybed to him too much If any of you shall muse why in these Dialogues all the Protestants being otherwise presumed to be most learned do reply so sparingly eyther to Cardinall Bellarmyne or to Michaeas their answeres and arguments as here you shall find them to do you are to conceaue that it is agreed in the begining of the two first Dialogues among all the Interlocutours to stand indisputably to the freqrent Confessions of the learned Protestants vrged in behalfe of any poynt controuerted Now both the Cardinall and Michaeâ—s for the most part do auoyd the other Interlocutours reasons and instances by the contrary acknowledgments of diuers eminent Protestants as also do produce their owne arguments in defence of their Catholicke articles from the like acknowledgments of the learned Protestants speaking in those points agaynst themselues and in behalfe of the Catholickes Which method being chiefly houlden throughout these Dialogues how then can the Protestant Interlocutours continue any new reply agaynst the Caidinall or agaynst Michaeas But to reflect vpon the subiect of this second Dialogue And here I do auouch that to maintayne that Protestancy was euer before the breaking out of Luther though euen then it was not in it perfection is no lesse absurd in reason then to maintayne that the byrth of any thing can precede it conception and the effect the cause True it is that in diuers former ages there haue bene some secret and indeed blind Moules who working vnder the foundation of the Roman Church haue labored
with Waldo so descending to Luthers dayes seing by this playne method the Reader might at the first sight and sensibly obserue that he hath omitted contrary to the title of his Booke eleuen hundred yeres without giuing any one instance of Protestancy for all those seuerall ages Therefore he craftily beginneth to instance in the tymes before Luther and so ryseth vpward some foure hundred yeres from this day in his pretended Examples Thus hoping that the vulgar Reader would either through not perusing the booke to the End or through want of Iudgment not so easely and instantly espye how far and no further he had proceeded in these Examples Now touching his Examples he first instanceth in Hus and Ierome of Prage who liued anno Domini 1400. that is some hundred and twenty yeres or thereabouts before Luthers Apostasy To this Example of Hus in which the Pamphleter cheifly insisteth for as for Ierome of Prage he but embraced some of Hus his errours as learning them from him I First answere that supposing Hus had broached all poynts of Protestancy yet followeth it not that Luther had receaued the said Doctryne from Hus by an vninterrupted descent of Beleife as this Authour pretendeth for it may well be that Hus his Errours were extinct in respect of any beleiuers before Luthers dayes Euen as Aerius denyed prayer for the deade and the Hereticke Manichaeus freewill as S. Austin witnesseth yet were those Heresyes vtterly extinguished for many ages till Luther reuiued them Secondly the articles which Hus mantayned different from the Roman Church were but foure as they are recorded by Fox himselfe Of which the doctrine of Communion vnder both kinds was the cheifest though according to the iudgement of Luther it is a point but of In differency In all other points Hus was Catholicke which this Authour calumniously concealeth Thirdly Hus mantayned that acknowledged Heresy on all sydes that Bishopps Princes being in mortall sinne were not to be obayed but thereby did loose all their authority Which Heresy is in like sort wholy concealed by this Pamphleter Concerning the particular prouffes of all which points euen from the Protestants Confessions I referre the Reader to the former Dialogue where Michaeas discouereth them at large as the like he doth of Wicklefe Waldo and others hereafter alledged by this Treatiser Fourthly if the Visibility of the Protestant Church may be iustifyed in Hus or in Waldo Wicklefe or in any other hereafter obtruded for a Protestant by this Pamphleter because eich of them taught two or three at the most of Protestant points then by the same reason may the Protestant Church de sayd to haue beene visible in the Arians for reiecting of Traditions for perpetrating many sacrileges agaynst the Sacraments Altars and Priests in Pelagius for teaching euery sinne to be mortall in Vigilantius for condemning all religious virginity and affirming the relicks of Saincts are not to be worshipped In the Manichees for denying of freewill And in diuers such others All branded Hereticks and registred for such by the orthodoxal Fathers of the Primatiue Church Now this Inference I would entreate the Reader to obserue with peculiar application to all the pretended examples of Protestancy alledged in this Pamphlet Fiftly if we should grant heere all that which is spoken of Hus yet it but warranteth the visibility of the Protestant Church only for the age in which Hus did liue His doctrine not being taught in ages before Now here in this discourse touching Hus I am to put the Reader in mind how this Authour spendeth many idle leaues in showing how the Nobles of Bohemia mantayned the errours of Hus And that they came into the field in great forces agaynst the Emperour in defence of the same so much sayth he was the doctrine of Hus dilated He also introduceth some one or other inueighing against the Popes manners and Cleargy of those tymes and for such their proceedings he tearmeth them Protestants And this method he mightely obserueth throughout his whole Pamphlet Idly inferring as if fayth which resids in the vnderstanding were not different from manners and conuersation which rest in the Will Or that abuses in manners will not euer be in some members of the Church Or finally that a Protestant for charging of some Ministers of his part with disorders of life or Puritans for their bitter inuerghing against the Bishops here in England were therefore to be reputed Roman Catholicks so loosly and weakly he disputeth herein But all these his Digressions in respect of the vndertaken subiect of his discourse are meerly extrauagant And in my iudgment his intention in these and other such dilations and declamatory inuectiues wherewith his Treatise is in many places hereafter fraught is cheifly but to fill vp leaues of paper that so his booke might grow to some reasonable quantity For seeing all his supposed examples of Protestancy in his Treatise might well be contayned omitting all froathy ambages and circumstances in two sheets of paper and seeing such a poore thing could not come forth alone with any credit to the cause or reputation to the writer He therefore thought it more fit to interweaue in his Pamphlet diuers long and tedious discourses how improfitable soeuer This to thinke I am the rather induced in that we may further obserue in how great and large a letter his Booke is printed and how spacious the margent of his leaues are being almost as much paper in quantity as that which is printed And all this as probably may be coniectured to the end that this his learned Tome forsooth might contayne some indifferent number of leaues See how suttle Heresy is in triffles and things of no moment The Authour hauing finished his discours of Hus his adherents followers in the next place riseth to the Waldenses who as is here alledged denyed Purgatory Transubstantiatiō blessing of Creatures First touching Transubstantion what the Pamphleter here deliuereth is a vast Vntruth as appeareth from the testimony euen of Calu 〈…〉 thus wryting Formula Confessionis c. The forme of Cōfession of the Waldenses doctrine doth inuolue all those in eternall damnation who do not confese that the Bread is become truly the body of Christ In lyke sort touching the doctrine of Purgatorie Benedictus Montargensis a Lutheran chargeth the Waldenses therewith from which two Examples we may take a scantling what credit is to be giuen to the Pamphleter in his other Assertions hereafter But grant that the Waldenses did teach some one or other poynt of Protestancy yet in regard of their far greater Number of Catholicke Articles euer beleiued by them and their many execrable Heresies condemned for such both by Catholicks and Protestants both which poynts this Pamphleter pretermitted in silence The Waldenses cannot iustly be exemplified for Protestants Now of the Catholicke Articles as also of the Heresies beleiued by the Waldenses see the Dialogue aboue in the
he aboundantly declareth that Wâ—clefe was condemned by the Church of Rome for his defence of many errours and Heresyes he subtilly beareth the Reader in hand though he expresseth not any of them in particular that all these Heresyes condemned in him were points of protestancy thereby to make show what a great number of protestant articles were beleiued in those dayes and how much the said Men did participate in doctrine with the protestants of these tymes But this is a meere sleight and imposture seeing it is euident that besides some few points of protestancy beleiued by Wiclefe Huâ— the Waldenses or Albigenses there were many more Heresyes mantayned by them then condemned by the Church of Rome Which are acknowledged for Heresyes both by Catholicks and Protestants and such as in no sort concerne the Protestant Religion as way euidently appeare from the perusing of the seuerall passages of the former Dialogue wherein the heresies of Wiclefe Hus the Waldenses and others are at large displayed From Wiclefe the pamphleter commeth to Geffray Chaucer And thus he is forced by his owne poetizing and forging art to beg some prouffe from Poets Of Chaucer he thus wryteth He did at large paint out the pryde lasciuious vicious and intellerable behauiour of the Popes Cardinalls and Cleargy c. adding much more securiliâ—y of his owne and setting downe certaine verses of Chaucer But what prooueth this For first we are not in reason to giue credit to euery verse dropping from the satyricall penne of Chaucer Secondly admit all were true that Chaucer writeth yet seeing his reprehensions do only touch manners and conuersation and not fayth it followeth not that Chaucer was a protestant as I haue intimated in the former examples or that the Protestant Religion was in his dayes professed which is the only point here to be prooued Thirdly if it must be concluded that Chaucer for such his wryting was a protestant then by the same reason may Spencer the Poet for his bitter taxing of the Cleargy in his Mother Hubbardstale and Daniel for his controuling of the present tymes touching Religion and Learning in his Musophilus be reputed Catholicks or Papists yet it is well knowne they both were Protestants and the later rather a puritan The Pamphleter next insisteth in one Walter Bruit an English Man liuing anno 1393 and puteth him forth for a protestant for his defending of diuers supposed doctrines of protestancy there set downe To this I answere first he alledgeth no authenticall writer affirming so much but only an obscure Register of the Bishop of Hereford and therefore it may iustly be suspected to be meerely suppositions and forged or rather that it is but feigned that such a writing is seeing such a writing may with more facility be coyned without any discouery of deceat therein as being to he found only among the Antiquityes belonging to the sayd Bishop who is a protestant Secondly suppose all for true yet seeing that Scedule prooueth the sayd Bruite to be a protestant but only in some points it followeth that he was Catholicke in the rest and therefore can no more be challenged for a protestant then for a Catholicke being the fayth of a professour in any Religion ought to be entyre perfect compleate otherwise no man can take his denomination and name from the same fayth Thirdly suppose him to be a Protestant in all points yet seing he is but one particular man that it cannot be prooued that others did communicate with him in doctrine his example cannot prooue the visibility of the Protestant Church since one man alone cannot be accounted for a Church Lastly this example serueth admitting it for true but for the tyme that Bruyte liued It not being able to be prooued that the doctrines of Protestancy imputed to him were taught and beleiued in all other Ages and Centuryes This donne the Pamphleter proceedeth to diuers burnt and put to death for their Religion in the dayes of King Henry the fourth the fift and the sixt King Edward the fourth and King Henry the seauenth Which testimonyes he taketh out of that lying Legend of Fox to which booke no more credit is to be giuen then to Esop fables But to these examples I reply first The Treatiser setteth not downe the Protestant articles mantayned by these men for their defence of which they are here presumed to be burned And therefore it well may be that they suffered death for their broaching of some other heresyes or blasphemyes not controuerted between the Protestant and the Catholicke therefore such Examples are wholy impertinent Secondly if we do admit the authority of Fox herein yet it proueth that those men lost their liues but for one two or three particular points at the most of protestancy mantayned seuerally by eich of them they embracing all other poynts of Catholicke Religion being both more in number and of greater importance And if it be otherwise then let this Authour prooue 〈◊〉 were Protestants in all chiefe Articles of Protestancy Now how insufficiently such examples can be suggested for the visibility of the Protestant Church in former Ages appeareth both from that already set downe in this Suruey as also more fully from the perusall of the former Treatise And here the Reader is to obserue that as such men aboue mentioned cannot iustly be taken for Catholicks so may they truly be ranged for hereticks seing a stubborne and contumacious beleife but of one heresy maketh a man an hereticke Whereas it must be an â—nanimous fayth of all points of true Religion without exception of any which is exacted for making a man a true beleiuer For the nature of true fayth doth here participate of the nature of an action morally vertuous Which is become defectiue through the want of one due circumstance only but is made perfect and complete by the necessary presence of all due circumstances After the former examples he commeth to Marsilius de Padua an acknowledged Hereticke Who cheifly erred in denying the Popes authority Now the Pamphleter to make his doctrine in this one point to seeme more diuers in seuerall points from the doctrine of the Catholicks subtilly deuideth it in setting it downe into seuerall branches But to what end is this example pressed Seing it was the errour but of one Man at that tyme and principally but in one Controuersy He comparting with the Catholicks in the doctrine of the Reall presence Purgatory Freewill praying to Saints merit of Works Traditions c. In the next place he vrgeth two Italian Poets Dante 's and Petrach for Protestants because they did wryte somewhat in depressing the Popes Authority in behalfe of the Emperour Now to discouer more fully the Pamphleters falshood in his producing these two Italian Poëts Dante 's and Petrach as supposed by him to teach that the Pope is Antichrist and Rome Babilon I will heare proue from their owne wrytings the meere contrary to this his
impudent assertion And first touching Dante 's He thus wryteth of S. Peter in his Italian verses O luce eternâ— del gran viro A cui nostro Signor lascio le chiaui Ch' ei portò giùda questo gaudio mirâ— In lyke sort touching Rome it selfe he thus discourseth Non pare indeg no al huomo d'intelletto Che ei su de l'alma Roma de suo impero Nel ' empirco ciel ' per padre eletto La quale el quale à voler direilvero Fur stabilite per lo loco sancto r ' fiede il successor del maggior Piero. In which verses Rome is called a reuerend Citty a holy place fortified and strenghtned euen from Heauen and finally the seate of Peter Againe Dante 's was much aduers against Pope Nicolas the third whom being dead Dante 's notwithstanding thus honored with his Verse Et se non fusse ch' aucor le me vieta I ariuerentia delle summe chiani Cheiutenesti vella vita lieta Iover ei parcle ancor più graut In which words Dante 's confesseth plainly that the reuerence which he did beare to this Pope in regard that he receaued the keyes of the Church meaning supreme authority in Christs Church was the cause why he did forbeare to wryte more sharply against hym Finally to omit many other lyke passages Dante 's saith that Boniface the eight Ne summo offitio ne Ordini sacri Guardò in se In which verse he acknowledeth that supreme authority and holy Orders did resyde in Boniface whose manners were otherwise displesing to Dante 's In this next place I will come to Petrarch who thus wryteth in acknowledging the power of the Bishop of Rome Quis quaeso non stupeat simulque non gaudeat si amicus sit Vicario IESV CHRISTI And further Romano Pontifici omnes qui Christiano nomine glortamur non modo consilium sed obsâ—quium insuper obedientiam debemus All we who glory in the name of Christians do owe not only counsell but duty and obedience to the Bishop of Rome Now for greater euidency of this poynt I will descend to the particular prayses geuen by Petrarch to particular Popes in his Italian booke written of the liues of Popes We there then find that of Pope Vrbanus 5. he thus writeth Fu nelle sacre Scripture dottissimo santamente visse Vrbanus was most learned in the holy Scriptures and liuod most Sanctly Of Clemens 6. he thus recordeth Fu per nome per fatti di molte virtù pieno Clement was both for his name and for his deeds replenished with much vertue Of Benedict 12. these are his words Beneditto fatto Papa reformò l'Ordine di S. Benedetto c. era feruido nella fide nelle buone operezelatore Benedict being created Pope did reforme the Order of S. Benedict c. He was feruerous in the fayth and zelous in good works c. To be short of Iohn 22. he thus saith Costuifu ottimo glorioso Pastore fece molti bein Hereticiper zelo della fide condamno This man was a very good and glorious Pastour He did many good deeds and condemned Hereticks out of his zeale to the fayth And now I refâ—r to any in different iudgment whether these two Italian Poëtes Dante 's and Petrarch did thinke the Pope of Rome to be Antichrist or no as our Pamphleter semeth to vrge â—hey did and whether the former prayses can be truly applyed to Anthichrist the whoare of Babilon â—o euident it is that what the foresaide PoeÌ„ts did Saâ—yrically wryce was written only against some disorders in the Church of Rome and against the presumed faults of some particular Popes but neuer against their supreme dignity in the Church of Christ And as touching the former Popes by Petrarch so commended We are to remember that his prayses deliuered of them where written after the deaths of the said Popes and therefore his words could not be censured to proceede from adulation and flattery but according to his owne true and secret iudgment passed vpon those Popes In the same manner for their lyke inueâ—ghing against the fulnes of the Popes power and iurisdiction he alledgeth certaine obscure men to wit Dulemus Hayabalus Ioannes Biraensis Ioannes de Rupe scissa three religious Men who liued and dyed in respect of all other poynts in the Roman Church And yet touching Ioannes de Rupe scissa both this Authour and the authour of Catalogus testium veritatis From whom this man taketh it are deceaued if we may beleiue Fox who thus wrytes of hym Ioannes de Rupe scissa liued in the yere 1340. who for his rebuking of the spiritually for their great enormittes and neclecting their office was cast into prison Our Pamphleter after produceth Gerson for a Protestant of whom he thus saith Gerson saw in his ages many horrible abuses of the Church of Rome and in his wrytings spake liberally of it Is not this a learned prouf for Gersons being Protestant in all poynts of Protestancy After all the former â—nstances the Pamphleter euen for want of other matter returneth back againe to the Waldenses or Albigenses iterating with a tedious prolixity his former discouâ—s concerning them and this in many leaues Whereby he sheweth the extreme mendicity of his Cause and that he laboreth with all Art possible to draw out this his Treatise as is aboue said into some reasonable number of sheets But touching the Waldenses I refer the Readeâ— as afore I willed to the pâ—rticular passage of Waldo in the former Dialogue His former Extrauagancyes of discours being ended he is not ashamed to challenge S. Bernard for a Protestant of whom he thus wryteth Before our ascending thus high we might tell you of S. Bernard whom all though it is lykely at the first dash you will challenge as your owne yet when you haue well aduized of hym you may let hym go againe O perfrictam frontâ—m and wonderfull Impudency For who is so ignorant or so bould that wil not confesse S. Bernard to haue bene a Roman Catholicke in all points He was a religious Man and Abbot of Claireuaux and Authour of many Monasteryes in Flanders and France as O siander the Protestant confesseth he also was Pryest and said Masse to his dying day as all Writers of him do testify A poynt so euident that for his being a great and eminent member of our Catholicke Church the Centurists al Protestants thus censure him Bernardâ—â—s coluit Deum Maozim ad nouissimum vitae suae articulum And further they say of him Bernardus fuit acerrimus propugnator sedis Antichristi Bernard was an earnest defendour of the seaâ—e of Antichrist Here now I refer to the candid and vpright Reader what impudency it was in this Man to challenge Bernard for a member of the Protestant Church But heere touching S. Bernard I cannot but abserue
heare of our Sauiours death and Passion The Crosse being but to the Eye as the Words are to the eare In this next place we will breifly touche praying vpon beades benediction or blessing of Water Sali Aches Candells c. against which many Protestants do mightely inueigh as charging the Catholicks theâ—rein with Superstition affirming further that the Catholicks do place a kynd of Diuinity in these matters Into such strayts we see the Protestants are driuen that whereas they are not able by any forcible arguments to ouerthrowe the Catholicke fayth in the greatest cheifest articles they therefore bend all their stenght to impugne these small rytes and Ceremonyes And first touching praying vpon beades All Men know it is but the repetition of the same prayers seuerall tymes the beades seruing only but to number or counte the tymes This Custome is warranted by the exâ—mple of our Sauiour hymselfe who being in the garden did repeate one and the same prayer to wit meâ—hree â—hree seuerall tymes Now if it be lawfull to iterate one and the same prayer thryse it is lawfull by the same reason to iterate it many scores of tymes together Againe if it be lawfull to repeate the Lords prayer seuen tymes in a weeke for I presume euery Protestant will confesse he saith it once a day why then may he not repeate the said Lords prayer or any other good and spirituall prayer seauen tymes a day and if seauen tymes why not then any greater number of tymes Againe once granting the prayer to be good the goodnes of the Prayer by force of all reason doth warrant the often repetition of it The precise number or tymes of repeating one the same prayer among Catholicks hath a mysticall reference either to the number of Dauids Psalms or to the nuÌ„ber of the yeeres that our blessed Lady liued heare vpon earth or to the number of our Sauiours wounds or to the number of the Persons in the most blessed Trinity Or to some other such Mystery The Antiquity of praying vpon Beads is confested by the Centurists and by Osiander to haue bene twellue hundred yeres since In lyke sorte the antiquity is recorded by Zozomene who saith that Paule the Monke was accustomed to pray by counting the number of litle stones in tyme of repeating his prayers Which is all one as to pray vpon beads The words of Zozomene are these Indiâ—s singulos trecentas orationes Deo velut tributum quoddam reddidit ac neper imprudentiam in numero errant trâ—centis lappillis in sinum contectis ad singulas preces singulos inde eâ—ecit lapillos consumptis igitur lapillis constabit sibi orationes lapillis numero pares abs se explectos esse And thus much touching praying vpon Beads We will next deâ—â—ende to the consecrating or blessing of Creaturs vsed in the Catholicke Church the lawfulnes whereof is warranted by the example of Christ himselfe Who intending to multiplye the breads did looke vp towards Heauen and blessed the breads and from that blessing of his did multiplye them But certaine it is that what our Sauiour did is free from all reprehension Againe doth not the Apostle say That euery Creature is sanctified by the Word and prayer The Antiquity of Hollowing or blessing Creatures and particularly of holy water is very greate For Clemens Dionysius both who liued in the Apostles tymes Cirill Cyprian Ambrose Austin and others co make frequent mention of Holy Water and the religious vse thereof And hence it is that the Centurists do charge the Fathers liuing in the third age after Christ with superstition in blessing and hollowing of water among which Fathers S. Cyprian thus saith Oportet mandari sanctificari prius aquat a Sacerdote Benediction of Oyle is mentioned and approued by Clemens and Dionisius in the places aboue noted by Basill Austin Cyprian who thus expresly saith Olium in Altari Sanctificatur by the Councel of Leodice by the second Councell of Carthage by the third Councell of Carthage by the first Councell of Toleâ—â— Finally to omit the testimonyes hereof of other Councells and auncient Fathers the antiquity of Hollowing of Oyle and that particularly by a Bishop is acknowledged by the Centurists and by Cempin 〈…〉 s. Benediction of breads and this besides the â—se thereof in the consecration of the Sacrament is proued from the authority of S. Austin S. Paulinus and S. Ierome the words of which last Father are these Coneurrebant Episcopi Presbiteri c. vulgus ignobile potentes viri Iudices vt benedictum ab eo panem vel â—leum acciperent This poynt of the benediction of bread is so euident to haue bene practized in those auncient tymes that D. Fulke thus speaketh thereof It was a superstitious bread giuen in S. Austins tyme to those that were Catechumeni in steede of the Sacrament And Philip Mornay in lyke sort thus chargeth the Liturgy of S. Basill It alloweth holy bread to be distributed after Seruice to such as had not communicated Benediction of Candells is acknowledged by the fourth Councell of T 〈…〉 ledo by Pope Zozimus S Gregory Prudentius and Strabo and according hearto the Centurists do confesse the antiquity of this Ceremony to be greate and withall do further confesse that Candells did burne in the Church in the day tyme in Constantyns dayes thus wryting hereof Accensiones candelâ—rum interdiù in templis Constantinus instituit The proufe of which custome is further euident out of the fourth Councell of Carthage Eusebius and Ierome The benediction of Palms and Ashes is proued from the authority of S. Maximus Now to reiect the authorityes of all the former Fathers touching the benediction of Creatures is to charge the Primatiue Church with superstition and errour Which no Man either of humility Charity or learning will do Ad herto that the Protestants themselfs do practice this consecration of Creaturs For they do consecrate their new builded Colledges and Ch 〈…〉 ches or Chappell 's yea which is most ridiculou It hath bene obserued of late that in some places of England Yf a Catholicke hath bene buryed in a Church â—otwithstanding the Church was first builded by Gotholicks the Church as supposed to be prophaâ—ed by the dead body of the Catholicke hath beene by it Person and Ministers of new consectated and hollowed Spectatam admissi â—isumteneatis Now in this next place we will show the end why Creatures are blessâ—d by the prayers of the Chuâ—ch Which end is threefould First to signify spirituall effects Thus the sprinkling of Ashes signifyeth penance Palmes signify victory the Paschal Candell betokeneth the glory of these Resurrection And thus they are vsed to stirrup our deuotion The second End is to take away veniall sinns of which poynt S.