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.

Confutation. fol. 56. a.

Saing and doing are two thinges. Ye saye wel in out∣ward appearance. Would God your doing were accor∣dingly. Albeit the manner of your saying had ben more cōmendable, if in so weighty a point you had spokē more particularly and distinctly, not so generally, and confuse∣ly. * Ye saye that the minister ought laufully to be called (for so hath your Latine) and duely and orderly to be pre∣ferred to that office of the Churche of God. Why do ye not so? why is not this obserued among you Gospellers?

What so euer ye meane by your Minister, and by that of∣fice, this are we assured of, that in this your new Church Bishops, Priestes, Deacons, Subdeacons, or any other in∣feriour Orders ye haue none. In saying thus we speake not of our Apostates, that be fledde from vs vnto your congregations. Who as they remaine in the order which they receiued in the catholike Church: so being diuided and cut of from the Church and excommunicate, lauful∣ly they may not minister the sacramentes. * For where as after the doctrine of your newe Gospel like the fore∣ronners of Antichrist ye haue abandoned thexternal Sa∣crifice and priesthod of the newe Testament, and haue not in your secte consecrated Bishops, and therefore be∣ing without Priestes made with lawfull laying on of handes, as Scripture requireth, al holy Orders being geuen by Bishops only: how can ye saie that any among you can laufully minister, or that ye haue any lauful Mi∣nisters at al?

This then being so, let me haue leaue to oppose one of these Defenders consciences. And that for the better vnderstanding I may directe my wordes to a certaine person, let him be the author of this Apologie, or bicause his name to me is vnknowen, let him be M. Iewel. for with him gladly would I reason in this point the rather for acquaintaince, and for that he beareth the name of a Bishop in that Churche, where my selfe had a rome.

How saye you Syr minister Bishop, ought the Minister to be laufully called? ought he duely and orderly to be preferred to that office, or (as the Latine here hath) pro∣moted or put in authoritie ouer the Church? in the Apo∣logie this Defender saith yea. Then answer me directe∣ly.

How proue you your selfe laufully called to the roume you take vpon you to occupie? First, touching the ordinary Succession of Bishops, from which as you knowe, S. Iraeneus, Tertullian, Optatus and S. Augustine bring argument and testimonie of right and true religion: do you allow the same with those fathers, or no? If not, then dissent you from the learned and most vncorrupte antiquitie. which is not reasonable, neither then are you to be heard. If yea, then how can you recken vs vp your succession, by which you may referre your imposition of handes and consecration to some of the Apostles, or of their scholers, as the foresaid fathers did, to repel the no∣uelties of heresies, and defende their continual posses∣sion of the Churche? Which if ye go about, how can ye but to the great hinderance of your cause bewraye your weake holde? For whereas succession of doctrine must be ioyned with the succession of persons, as Cal∣uine in his institutions affirmeth, and Beza auouched at the assemblie of Poyssi in Fraunce, and we also graunt: how many Bishoppes can you recken, whom in the Churche of Sarisburie you haue succeded as wel in do∣ctrine as in outward sitting in that chayre? How many can you tel vs of, that being your Predecessours in order before you, were of your opinion, and taught the faithful people of that Dioces the doctrine that you teache? Dyd Bishop Capon teach your doctrine? did Shaxton? did Campegius? did Bishop Audley? Briefly did euer any Bishop of that See before you teache your doctrine? It is most certaine they did not. How so euer those two first named only in some part of their life taught amisse, how afterward they repēted, abhorred

your heresies, and dyed catholikes, it is wel knowen.

Now besides these whom elles can you name? If you can not shewe your bishoply Petigree, if you can proue no Succession, then whereby holde you? Wil you shew vs the letters patentes of the prince? Wel may they stand you in some stede before men: before God, who shal cal you to accompte for presuming to take the highest office in his Churche not duely called thereto, they shal serue you to no purpose.

Here if you alleage an interruption of this Succes∣sion of doctrine, as it hath ben alleaged by some of your side: then must you tel vs when and where the same be∣ganne, which you can neuer do. You know what Ter∣tullian saith of suche as ye be. Edant origines ecclesiarum suarum &c. We saye likewise to you M. Iewel, and that we say to you, we saye to eche one of your companions. Tel vs the original and first spring of your Church. Shewe vs the register of your Bishops continually succeding one an¦other from the beginning, so as that first Bishop haue some one of the Apostles, or of the Apostolike men for his author and predecessour. For by this waye the Apostolike churches shewe what reputation they be of. As the Church of Smyrna telleth vs of Polycarpe by Iohn the Apostle placed there. The Church of the Romaines telleth vs of Clement ordeined by Peter. S. Augustine hauing reckened vp in order the Bis∣shops of Rome to Anastasius successor to Siricius, who was the eight and thirteth after Peter, saieth that in al that nūber and rolle of Bishops there is not found one that was a Donatiste, and thereof he concludeth, Ergo the Dona∣tistes be not catholikes. So after that we haue reckened al the Bishops of Sarisburie from Bishop Capon vpward,

we shal come at length in respect of doctrine and orders, to S. Augustin the Apostle of the English, who was made bishop by S. Gregorie, and from S. Gregorie vpward to S. Peter. And in al that rewe of Bishops we shal finde neuer a one that beleeueth, as M. Iewel beleeueth. ergo your Zuinglian and Caluiniā beleefe M. Iewel and of the rest of your felowes is not catholike. But what speake we of succession to them, who haue no orderly succes∣sion, as no secte of heretikes euer had?

Therefore to go from your Succession, which ye can not proue, and to come to your Vocation, how say you Sir? you beare your selfe, as though you were Bishop of Sarisbury. But how can you proue your Vocation? By what auctoritie vsurpe you the administration of Do∣ctrine, and Sacramentes? What can you alleage for the right and proufe of your Ministerie? Who hath called you? Who hath layd handes on you? By what example hath he done it? How, and by whom are you consecra∣ted? Who hath sent you? Who hath committed to you the office you take vpon you? Be you a Priest, or be you not? If you be not, how dare you vsurp the name and of∣fice of a bishop? If you be, tel vs who gaue you Orders? The institution of a Priest, was neuer yet but in the pow∣er of a Bishop. Bishops haue alwayes after the Apostles tyme according to the Ecclesiastical Canons ben conse∣crated by three other Bishops with the consent of the Metropolitane, and confirmation of the B. of Rome.

Thus Vnitie hath hitherto ben kept, thus Schismes haue ben stayd. And this S. Cyprian calleth legitimam ordina∣tionem. For lacke of which he denyed Nouatian to be a bishop, or to haue any autoritie or power in the Church.

Hereto neither you nor your felowes, who haue vnlau∣fully inuaded the administration of the Sacramentes, can make any iust and right answer, I am sure.

What, do not you remember what iudgement Atha∣nasius, and the Bishops of Egypte, Thebais, Lybia, and Pentapoli were of concerning Ischyras the Arian? And why may not al good Catholique men iudge the like of you? Macarius a Priest of Athanasius (as it was layd to his charge by his accusers) pulled Ischyras from the aulter as he was at Masse, ouerthrewe the holy table, brake the chalice. The matter brought to iudgement, Athanasius and those bishoppes both denied the fact, and also though it were graunted, yet defended the same as wel done, because Ischyras was not a lauful minister of the Church. And why so? Because he was not lawful∣ly made Priest, nor with churchly laying on of handes consecrated. For proufe thereof they alleaged, that nei∣ther he was of the number of those whom Alexander bishop of Alexandria before Athanasius receiued into the Church made Priestes by Meletius the heretique, nei∣ther that he was by the sayd Alexander created. Then how is Ischyras a priest, say they, or of whom hath he receiued his orders? Hath he receiued them of Collu∣thus? For this shift onely remaineth. (Colluthus was an Arian, who bare him selfe for a bishop and gaue Orders being but a priest). Now Colluthus, say they in their re∣ply, could not make him a priest, for that he died in degree of priesthod himselfe, and neuer was consecrated bishop, and that al imposition of handes or geuing of orders was compted of no force, and that al they whom he had con∣secrated, were brought downe againe to the order of the

laitie, and vnder the name and in order of lay men recei∣ued the cōmunion. Hereof they conclude that Ischyras could be no priest. And therefore it was denied, that there was the mysterie of the body and bloude of our Lorde. By which example besides other points we are taught, what to iudge of your pretensed Communion.

Againe what say you to Epiphanius, who writeth against one Zacchaeus of his tyme, for that being but a laye man with wicked presumption tooke vpon him to handle the holy mysteries, and rashly to do the office of a Priest? Likewise where he findeth great fault with two other, of which the one dwelt at a monasterie in the wildernes of Egypt, the other at Sinaeum: for that they feared not to execute the thinges that belong to Bishops not hauing receiued the imposition of handes, that perteineth to the consecration of a Bishop. And wil you vnderstand what Epiphanius iudged of that wicked dis∣order? He acknowledgeth it to be the part of men that of a certaine presumption of minds violently and besides all truth play the rash and dissolute wantons. For so the Greeke signifieth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thus they be neither Priestes nor Dea∣cons, which be not consecrated laufully according to the order vsed in the Church, that is to wit, by bishops lauful∣ly consecrated, but either by the people or the lay magi∣strate, as it is in some places where this doctrine is profes∣sed, or by monkes and friers Apostates, or by excommu∣nicate priestes hauing no bishoply power.

Hereof S. Hierome saith notably. Hilarius cùm Dia∣conus de Ecclesia recesserit, &c. Hilary forasmuch as he wēt from the Church being a Deacon, and is only (as he thinketh)

the multitude of the world, can neither consecrate the Sa∣crament of the aulter being without Bisshop and Priestes, nor deliuer Baptisme without the Eucharist. And where as now the man is dead, with the man also the Sect is ended, because being a Deacon he could not consecrate any clercke, that should remaine after him. And Church is there none, which hath not a Priest. But letting go these fewe of litle re∣gard that to them selues be both lay and Bisshops, listen what is to be thought of the Church. Thus S. Hierome there. In whom leauing other thinges I note, that if there be no Church where is no Priest: where is your Church like to become after that our Apostates that now be fled frō vs to you, shalbe departed this life? And yet being with you as they be, your Church is already in such state as S. Hierome reporteth, that is, no Churche at al, howe so euer ye set foorth your newe gospel vnder the name of the Church of England. Bucer being once charged to geue accompt of his vocation, had no other shifte, but to acknowledge for defence of his ministerie, that he had taken Orders of a bishop after the rite and maner of the Catholike Church.

Sleidan recordeth that Luther himselfe wrote to the senate of Mulhusen concerning Muncer the preacher of the Anabaptistes, who stirred the common people of Germanie to rise against their nobilitie, that the senate should do wel to demaund of Muncer, who committed to him the office of teaching, and who had called him thereto. And if he would name God for his authour, that then they should require him to proue his vocation by some euident signe or miracle. If he could not do that, then he aduised them, to put him awaye. For this is the

wont of God said he, when so euer he willeth the accu∣stomed forme and ordinarie maner to be changed, to de∣clare his wil by some signe. Therefore this being true, it remaineth M. Iewel, you tel vs, whether your vocation be ordinarie, or extraordinarie. If it be ordinarie, shewe vs the letters of your Orders. At lest shewe vs that you haue receiued power to do the office you presume to ex¦ercise, by due order of laying on of handes and conse∣cration. But order and consecration you haue not. For who coulde geue that to you of al these newe ministers how so euer els you cal them, whiche he hath not him selfe? If it be extraordinarie (as al that ye haue done hytherto is besides al good order) shewe vs some signe or miracle, If you faile in al these, why ought not you to be put awaie? If you can shew no signe or miracle, as your vertue promiseth vs none: bring vs forth some example of your extraordinarie vocation out of the Sto∣ries of Christes Church that hath folowed the Apostles. If you be destitute also thereof, at lest shewe vs, what prophete in the olde Testamente euer was heard extra∣ordinarily without signe, or miracle, or testimonie of God.

Finally what can you answer to that, whiche may be obiected to you out of S. Cyprians epistle to Magnus touching Nouatian? It was at those dayes a question, whether Nouatian baptized and offered, specially where as he vsed the forme, manner and ceremonies of the Churche. Cyprian denieth it. For he can not (saith he) be compted a Bisshop, who setting at nought the Tradition of the Gospel, and of the Apostles, nemini succedens à se∣ipso ordinatus est, succeding no man, is ordeined bisshoppe of

him selfe. For by no meanes may one haue or holde a Chur∣che, that is not ordeined in the Churche. I leaue here to recite the rest of that Epistle perteining to this point, and al against you, for that it were to long. Thus it is euident, for as muche as you can neither prooue your doctrine by continual Succession of Priestes, nor referre your Imposition of handes to any Apostle, or Aposto∣like Bishoppe, nor shewe your Vocation to be ordina∣rie for lacke of lauful ordination and consecration, nor extraordinarie for lacke of Gods testimonie and appro∣bation by signe or miracle, or example of the olde or newe Testament: that you are not laufully called to the administration of Doctrine and Sacramentes, that you are not duely and orderly preferred to the Ministerie whiche you exercise, that you go, not being called, that you runne, not being sent. Therefore we may iust∣ly say, that ye haue thrust your selfes into that Ministe∣rie at your owne pleasure and lyst. For though the Prince haue thus promoted you, yet be ye presumers and thrusters in of your selues. Wel, landes and manours the Prince may geue you, Priesthod and Bishophod the Prince can not geue you. This being so, we doo you no wrong as ye complaine, in telling you and declaring to the world, that touching the exercise of your Mini∣sterie ye do nothing orderly, or comely, but al thinges troublesomly and without order. Onlesse ye meane such order and comelines, as theeues obserue among them selues in the distribution of their robberies.

Lastly, if ye allowe not euery man, yea and euery wo∣man, to be a Priest, why driue ye not some of your felow∣es to recant, that so haue preached? why allow ye the

bookes of your newe Euangelistes, that so haue writen? And whether ye admitte al sortes of the common people to be your Ministers of the worde, to teache the people, and vnreuerently to handle the holy Scrip∣tures, or no: our proufe is nedelesse, the thing is ma∣nifest. *

Notes

• Al from starre to starre leafte out by M. Ievvel.
• No holy orders, among the gos¦pellers. Le•••• out by M. Ievvel.
• Leaft out by M. Ievvel.
• Succes∣sion of doctrine ioyned vvith suc¦cession of persons.
• B. Shax∣ton and, B. Capon repented. Leaft out by M. Ievvel.
• M. Iuel can shew no laufull successiō in the bi∣shoprike of Salis∣bury.
• I cast out by M. Ievvel.
• In prascis ptionibus aduersus haereticos. These be Tertulliās vvordes.
• Epist. 165.
• Leaft out by M. Ievvel.
• Hard que••••ion•• propo∣ned to M. Iuel.
• Leaft out by M. Ievvel.
• Athanas. in Apolo∣gia. 2.
• Ischyras and M Iuel com∣pared to∣gether.
• Leaft out by M. Ievvel. Colluthus. Hūc pres∣byteri & Diaconi Mareotici vocant nō verum, sed imagina∣rium epi∣scopum. Epist. ad Curiosum & Phyla∣grium. Apolog. 2. apud A∣thanasiū.
• VVhat may be iudged of the nevv commu∣nion.
• Cōtra hae∣reses lib. 2 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Least out by M. Ievvel.
• The doīg of a bis∣hops of∣fice by one that is not a bishop.
• VVhat Epipha∣nius iud∣geth of it
• In Dialo∣go contra Luciferia nos.
• Sacerdotē
• Leaft out by M. Ievvel. By S. Hie∣rome the English ••hurch shal be no Churche at al.
• Luthers aduise touching Muncers vocation
• Of vvhat maner is the voca∣tion of our super intendet••
• The De∣fenders haue no∣thing to say for defence of their vocatiō.
• Leaft out by M. Ievvel.
• Lib. 1. Epist. 6.
• Eusebius Ecclesiast. Hist. li. 6. cap. 43. in Graec.
• Leaft out by M. Ievvel. M. Ievvel and the rest of his compani∣ons, be no bishops, but vsur∣pers of an vndue of∣fice and ministe∣rie.
• Ierem. 23.
• Leaft out by M. Ievvel.