A detection of sundrie foule errours, lies, sclaunders, corruptions, and other false dealinges, touching doctrine, and other matters vttered and practized by M.Iewel, in a booke lately by him set foorth entituled, a defence of the apologie. &c. By Thomas Harding doctor of diuinitie.

Iewel.

The Subiecte is bound to obey his Prince:* 1.1 Hovvbeit not in al thinges vvithout exception, but so farre as Gods glorie is not touched. These Nobles had learned of S. Peter, It is better to obey God, then man: And of the prophete Dauid, Better it is to truste to God, then to truste in Princes.

Harding. S. Peter by this saying teacheth vs not to rebel against the Prince for maintenance of Religion.

Had these Nobles, as you say, learned this lesson?* 1.2 And doth this lesson either of S. Peter, or of the Prophete

Dauid, teache the Subiecte to resiste, and take Armes a∣gainst his Prince, in case the Prince doth commaund any thing against Gods Truth? I had thought M. Iewel, that the doctrine, whiche teacheth vs to obeye God more then menne, were fulfilled rather by suffering the penal∣tie of mans lawe, or wil, being contrarie to Goddes Lawe, and wil, then by resisting man put in authoritie by God: as S. Peter, who wrote the foresaid wordes, suf∣fered scourging,* 1.3 contumelies, and emprisonment, rather then he would obey the Magistrate commaunding him not to preache, nor teache in the name of Iesus. If the prince commaunde Heresie, or Idolatrie, the waie to obey both God, and the Prince, is, to keepe thee from yelding to Heresie, or committing of Idolatrie, and for Goddes sake to susteine the pounishment, what soeuer the Prince putteth vpon the breakers of his commaun∣dement. For it is two thinges, and much different, to obey the Prince in an vnlawful request, and to take Armes against the Prince.

* 1.4Both we (God be praised) for the Catholike faith, and your Rounde capped Ministers for their Cappes and Hattes, refuse to obey the Quenes Maiesties commaun∣dement,* 1.5 touching matters of conscience, bicause we knowe right wel, and they pretende to thinke al∣so, that by suche commaundement of the Prince, Goddes glorie is touched. In whiche case you saie M. Iewel, the Prince is not to be obeyed. Yet (God be praised) neither we, nor they doo take Armes, or attempte any force against our Prince, as these Nobles of Scotland haue done. We haue not so learned S. Pe∣ters lesson. We haue not so learned to obeye God

more then man. But we doo rightly iudge and protest, such demeanure to be an open disobediēce, both to God, and to man. And yet saie you M. Iewel, and that in your booke dedicated for a singular present vnto the Quenes most excellent Maiestie, that these Nobles of Scotland had learned S. Peters lesson? Tel vs in good sooth, if the Catholike Nobilitie, and Commons of England (who take your heresies to be against Gods truthe, as they are in deede) shoulde deale with the Quenes Maiestie for matters of Religion (whiche God forbid) as the Nobles of Scotland haue dealte with their liege Soueraine: would you defende their so doing, by S. Peter, and the prophete Dauid, and saie, that God is more to be obeyed, then man? I perceiue you are so selfe willed, and so ad∣dicted to your faction, that if you were a Papiste, you would doo no lesse, and be as ready to helpe suche a mat∣ter forwarde in England, as Beza your good brother in Fraunce, as the Gues here in the lowe Countries, and as Knox in Scotland haue benne.

But we openly protest before God, and the worlde, that we condemne, and defie al such attemptes. I meane, that any Subiecte, or Subiectes what so euer, of their owne priuate authoritie, should take Armes against their Prince for matters of Religion. This we doo teache to be plaine disobedience bothe to God, and to the Prince. This haue your Nobles of Scotland done more then once. And therefore you haue done vntruely, and lewdly, I wil not saie traiterously to the preiudice of the Quenes Maiesties owne safetie, in defending them, and in calling their outragious attemptes, suche obedience, as S. Peter taught, which was suche Treason, and Rebellion, as S.

Paule condemneth,* 1.6 saying, Let euery soule be subiecte to the higher powers. &c.

The Doctours, whom you allege, make clearely against those Nobles,* 1.7 whose rebellion you defende. Leo saith, To geue vnto Caesar, that whiche is Caesars, is not to re∣bel against Caesar, but to helpe Caesar. But your Nobles re∣belled against their Prince: Ergo, they gaue not that to Caesar, whiche was Caesars. Againe the Christians, of whom S. Ambrose speaketh,* 1.8 said to the Emperour, Ro∣gamus Auguste, non pugnamus: we beseche thee Noble Emperour, we fight not. But your Nobles fought against their Prince, they humbly besought not their Prince.

And yet (ô extreme impudencie) these places you allege to shewe the obedience of those Nobles. After this, as thoughe al the eares of Englande were stopped, and their wittes bewitched, you conclude in this wise.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Rebelliō against Princes defended by M. Ievvel. Act. 5. Psal. 118.
• * 1.2

  The .6. Chapt.
• * 1.3

  Act. 5.
• * 1.4

  Round capped Ministers
• * 1.5

  The Prīce not to be obeied by M. Iewels Diuinitie, vvhen Gods cause is touched.
• * 1.6

  Rom. 13.
• * 1.7

  Leo de passione Domini. Serm. 10.
• * 1.8

  Ambro∣sius. lib. 5. Epist. 33.