Church. By which publique notice, the stealetruth was discovered, and after publication of his heresie, the partie was repressed and excluded from the Communion of the whole Church. And in this alteration or change of Doctrine, Bellarmine's Reason may take place; that is, in everie great and notorious mutation there may be observed the author, the time, and the place, the beginnings, increasings, and the resistance made against it*. But the change of Romish Doctrine was otherwise; it it was like the Cockatrice Egge, a long time in the shell, before the Cockatrice did appeare; it was a secret Apostasie, a falling away from the Truth, which was caused at the first by an errour stolne into the Church: Sensim sine sensu, unsensible, and unawares. And therein appears the difference betwixt open Heresie and secret Apostasie. The open Hereticke visibly and professedly in a time knowne, by a person named, with a doctrine publikely professed, proclaims his Heresies against the Catholike truth; the secret Apostata closely and warily in the time of darknesse, when the servants of the Husbandman were asleep, unseene and unawares scattereth his seede. The one is easie to bee discerned and knowne, both for time and person, because he worketh openly in the day; the other scarcely to be discovered, because he worketh only in the night.

It is an undeniable truth, that some opinions

* Bell. lib. 4. de Ecclesia.

were

49

were condemned in the Primitive Church for erronious and superstitious, which now are established for Articles of Faith in the Romane Church. To give an instance: S. Austin complaines, that in his time the rude sort of people were intangled with Superstition, even in the true Church. I myselfe (saith hee) know many, that are worshippers of tombes and pictures, whom the Church condemneth, and seekes every day by correction to amend them, as ungracious children*. This holy Father complaines of some people in his dayes, which became superstitious in worshipping of Images, whom the Church did then condemne as corrupters of true religion. The authors of this error he nameth not; the time when it began, he sheweth not; notwithstanding wee are all eye-witnesses, that this corruption hath got the upper hand, and that which was then condemned by S. Austin, and the Church for Superstition, was confirmed foure hundred yeeres after by the second Councell of Nice, for Catholike Doctrine, and is now decreed by the Councell of Trent for an Article of Faith.

Hee that gave first a Primacie of Order to St. Peter, did never intend a Primacie of Power to the Pope; and yet wee see the Pope hath obtained it. Hee that made Pictures of Saints for memory, for

* Novi multos sepulchrorum et picturarum adoratores; nunc vos illud admoneo ut Cathol. Eccles. maledicere desinatis, vituperando mores hominum, quos et ipsa condemnat, et quos quotidie tanquam malos filios corrigere studet. August. de moribus Eccles. Cathol. lib. 1. cap. 34.

history,

history, for ornament, did little dreame, that the workes of his hands should bee worshipped; and that such worship should be decreed for an Article of Faith; and yet we see it is so established in the Church of Rome. Hee that in testimonie of the Resurrection, and out of humane affection, commended the memorie of dead souls unto God, did never dreame of Purgatorie; and yet wee see Purgatory is become a poynt of Faith, and made a gainfull merchandize in the Papall See. He that stirred up men to charitie and workes of pietie, did never intend to make workes copartners with Faith in our Justification in the sight of God. And yet wee see this Doctrine is stoutly justified by their Proselytes. He that instructed the Minister at the time of the Sacraments, religiously and carefully to intend that part of God's service in the time of the ministration, did little dreame, that the Ministers intention should make good, or make voyde all the seven Sacraments: and yet wee see this is the Tenet of the Romish Doctrine. The intention no doubt of many opinions in the first founders was good, but the application is now amisse. For the housholder made good lawes, but the enemy added a glosse: There was a double sinne in Gedeon (saith Ferus), both in that hee made an Ephod, contrary to the Word of God, and in that seeing the abuse thereof, hee tooke it not away. Now who seeth not, that the like hapneth to the Church? How many things did holy men ordaine with a good intent, which we see at this day

changed,

changed, partly by abuse, and partly by superstition? The Feasts, Ceremonies, Images, Masses, Monasteries, and the like, none of them were instituted to that intention at first, as now they are used, and yet wee Gedeons hold our peace; they take not away the abuse; they take not away the Superstitions*. This complainant was a Fryer, and a member of the Romane Church. He tells us, that Masses, and Monasteries, and Images, are all different from the meaning of the first founders, yet never tells us of the times, nor authors that first changed them. Now if the reformed Churches should have declined a Reformation, because they could not assigne the time and authours of those errors, who seeth not, but they had fallen into the sinne of Gedeon, who in seeing the abuse, tooke it not away? Nay more, those Romanists, which have made diligent search and inquirie to know the time and authors of their own errours, which they now count for Catholique Doctrine, although they professe they cannot precisely set downe their first beginnings, yet they ingeniously confesse an alteration of divers Tenets in their owne Church. The restraint of Priests' marriage, to say precisely when it came in (saith Marius), I cannot tell, although I have most diligently inquired after it. Con

*Ferus Annot. in Jud. cap. 8. Colon. 1571. Duplex, &c. Exemplo sint festa, ceremoniæ, Imagines, Missa Monasteria, &c. Nihil horum eà intentione institutum fuit, quà nunc habentur, &c.

+ Marius de Schism. et Concil. part 3. cap. ult.

cerning

cerning Prayer in an unknown tongue, It is to bee wondred, how the Church is altered in this poynt (saith Erasmus*), but the precise time hee cannot tell. The Communion in one kinde, when it got first footing in the Church, Minime constat, it doth not appeare, saith Gregory de Valencia †.

Now, if these men could have produced their Doctrine originally from the Scriptures, they should not have needed to require of us to shew them the first authors of their doctrine. For I confidently beleeve, if forbidding of Marriage had been the doctrine of Christ, which St. Paul termeth the doctrine of devils; (1 Tim. iv. 1.) if Prayer in an unknown tongue had beene taught and commended by the Apostle Saint Paul, as on the contrary it was forbidden by him, and condemned in his first Epistle to the Corinthians; if the Communion in one kind had been instituted by Christ, as the contrary was, to wit, in both kinds; if these poynts, I say, had been derived from the word of God, or had they alwaies been received as Apostolike Traditions in the Church, the beginning and the authour of their Tenets had been easily knowne, and then they might have been published out of certaine knowledge, both for time and person. And as touching this, and the rest of straw and stubble, which the Church hath added to her building, it is manifest by the Testimonies

* Mirum in hac re, quam Ecclesia mutatis sit consuetudo. Eras. in 1 Cor. xiv.

† Greg. de Val. de legit. usu Euchar. c. 10.

of