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.

Ievvel. Pag. 131.

T••rtullian saith, Nonne & laici sacerdotes sumus? scriptum est

&c. And vve being laye men, are vve not priestes? it is written,* 1.1 Christ hath made vs both a kingdome, and priestes vnto God his fa∣ther. The authoritie of the Church, and the honour by the as∣semblie, or Councel of Order sanctified of God hath made a dif∣ference betwen the laye, and the clergie, whereas there is no as∣semblie of ecclesiastical Order, the priest being there alone (vvith∣out the companie of other priestes) doth both minister the oblatiō, and also baptize. Yea, and be there but three together, and, though they be laye men, yet is there a Church. For euery man liueth of his owne faith.

Harding.

Wonder not M. Iewel (as you confesse that once you did) at your misfortune, and euil lucke, in that by vs a thowsand faultes are sooner fownd in your bookes, then you could wel without blushing (if any shame were in you) note two hundred in myne. For who so euer wri∣teth against the truth, can not possibly bring one word, which for maintenance of an vntruth may be altogether truly applied after the writers minde, out of whome the same is alleged, onlesse that writer were him selfe an He∣retike, or in that behalfe by better iudgement noted of some errour. Therefore it is easier to find many thow∣sand Lyes in your bookes, then any fewe in myne. And as that hath ben shewed in many other examples hereto∣fore, so shal it now appeare most euidently in this, which you bring out of Tertullian.* 1.2

First, the booke and worke, that you allege, is one of those which Tertullian wrote against the Churche, af∣ter that he became an Heretike, and was one of the disciples of Montanus. For as Montanus did con∣demne the second Mariages, so did his scholar Ter∣tullian: Who hauing corruptly interpreted many places of S. Paule, commeth at the length to proue his heresie

by conferring the olde Testament with the new. Ecce in veteri lege, &c. Beholde (saith he) in the olde lawe, I finde the licence of mariyng ofte to be inhibited. It is enacted in the booke of Leuiticus, Sacerdotes mei non plus nubent, my Priestes shal not marrye any more. But the fulnes of the law, as in other pointes, so in this, was reserued to Christe alone. VVhereupon it was more fully and more streightly prescribed, that those ought bo be of one matrimonie, who are chosen in the Priestly ord••r. In so much that I my selfe remember cer∣taine menne for hauing had two wiues, to haue ben remoued from their place (of Priesthod).* 1.3 But thou wilt say: Then is it lawful for other menne (to marrie twise) for so much as exception is made against them (to wit against Priestes) to whom it is not lauful (to haue ben twise maried). Hitherto Tertullian hath gon about by the example of the Priestes of the olde and new Testament to shew, that Laye men also may not marrye but once. For in the newe Testa∣ment S. Paule would haue them only chosen to Priest∣hod,* 1.4 who are, or haue benne the husbandes of one wife, that is to saye, haue neither had two wiues at once, nor haue married a widowe, nor haue had two wiues one af∣ter an other. For al this doth the Apostle meane, and the auncient Fathers do so witnesse.

Now Tertullian saw euidently, that there was a diffe∣rence betwen Priestes, and laye menne, whereupon he made the former obiection to him selfe, that the second mariages, which only do staye a man from being Priest, are absolutely lawful for him, who wil be no Priest, but wil remaine stil in the degree and state of laye men. To the which obiection being to strong for Tertullian, it be∣houed him so to answere, as yet his heresie against the se∣cond

mariages might be mainteined. So that nowe M. Iewel bringeth forth his heretical answer made vnto a Catholikes argument. Thus then Tertullian goeth for∣warde. Vani erimus si putauerimus, quòd Sacerdotibus nō li∣ceat, laicis licere, nonne & laici Sacerdotes sumus? We shal be deceiued (or we shalbe vaine men) if we shal thinke that to be lawful for Laye menne, whiche is not lawful for Priestes. We that are Laye men, are we not Priestes also? And so he goeth forward with that which M. Ie∣wel did allege for his purpose.* 1.5 For wheras there is a dou∣ble Priesthod, one publike and external, which is onely cōmon to those, that receiue power to consecrate Chri∣stes Body and Bloud at the Altare, the other priuate, and internal, which is indifferently common to the Priestes, and to laye men, whereby they al receiue power in Ba∣ptisme to offer spiritual Sacrifices vnto God,* 1.6 as S. Peter sa∣ith: Tertullian would haue the argument to be good, that as none are made publike and external Priestes, whiche haue had two wiues, so none who are internal priestes, might haue two wiues. But Tertullian is deceiued in his heretical argument, as wel as M. Iewel is in alleging an heretical authoritie.

Whereupon S. Hierome saith. Montanus,* 1.7 & qui Nouati schisma sectātur, putant secunda matrimonia ab Ec∣clesiae communione prohibenda, cùm Apostolus de Episcopis & Praesbyteris hoc praecipiens, vtique in caeteris relaxârit, non quòd hortetur ad secunda matrimonia, sed quòd necessi∣tati carnis indulgeat. Montanus, and those who followe the schisme of Nouatus, thinke that the second Mariages ought to be forbidden from the Communion of the Church, whereas the Apostle geuing that commaunde∣ment

vnto Bishoppes, and priestes, hath doubteles relea∣sed it in other men. Not that he exhorteth them to secōd mariages, but bicuase he yeeldeth to the necessitie of the flesh. So that S. Hierome reproueth that very argument of Tertullian, which now M. Iewel setteth forth. And in that very place, S. Hierome nameth Tertullian, as an en∣emie of second mariages.

But verely the case is not like in Bishops, and Priestes. For euerie man of necessitie is borne a laye man, there∣fore it were not reason to force him, who could not chose but be a laye man, to marye but once, whereas none are made Priestes, but those that know before hand, that the Apostle willed such only to be chosen Priestes, as are the husbandes of one wife, that is to say, as haue not had two wiues, but either none, or but one. This law being fore∣seene, causeth it to be no iniurie, to forbid the second ma∣riage, if any man wilbe an external and publike Priest. For he needeth not to be such a Priest, except he him selfe be willing thereunto.

Againe the internal Priest needeth no more, but an in∣ternal sanctitie, whiche may be kept in the second ma∣riage, and whereby God is specially pleased, and that bi∣cause he is only his owne Priest. But the external Priest, must also professe an external sanctitie, bicause he bea∣reth the person of the whole Churche, and by his order witnesseth,* 1.8 that the Church (as S. Paul saith) is despoused, or maried to one husband alone, verely to Christ: so that in the internal Priesthod it is inough to haue inward ho∣linesse without any outward signe peculiarly belonging therunto, bicause it is a Priesthod, which is geuen in Ba∣ptisme, where the soule is inwardly washed, ād prepared to receiue other sacramentes. But in the external Priest∣hod

there must be also an external signe of holines, bi∣cause that external priesthod is of it selfe a Sacramēt, that is a visible signe of a holy thing wrought inwardly.* 1.9

Thirdly the internal Priest hath only to offer his owne spiritual Sacrifices vpon the Aultare of his harte: but the external Priest hath to offer giftes, and external Sacrifices vpō the outward Altare also, for the sinnes of the whole people, as S. Paule saith. Therefore both Tertulliā in this point the Mōtanist, and M. Iewel the Caluinist are in like sort deceiued. The Montanist in making it no more law∣ful for a laye man to be twise maried, then for him to be made a Priest, who had ben twise maried: The Caluinist in making the internal, and external Priest to be al one. For whereas I reasoned out of S. Hierome, no Priest (or Bishop) and no Church (and S. Hierome meant of suche a Priest, as is aboue a Deacon) M. Iewel would proue out of Tertulliā, that where three Christiā laye men are, there is a Church. I cōfesse where but one Catholike layeman is, there is one of the Church, in which Church there are many external Priestes: but if ther be a thousand layemen belonging to such a congregation, as doth not acknow∣ledge any external Sacrifice, and Priesthod (as the prote∣stantes doo not): there those thowsand neither are the Church, nor of the Church, bicause no Church is with∣out an external Priest, or Bishop, who may offer publike Sacrifice, and also consecrate an external priest.

Tertullian was not of this mind, that there was no ex∣ternal Priesthod: but his errour was,* 1.10 in that he wold haue the internal, and external Priestes to be in like case con∣cerning the second mariages. But otherwise his wor∣des confesse, that not only the authoritie of the Church,

but also the honour sanctified of God by the assemblie of prie∣stes,* 1.11 hath made a difference betwen the Order (of priestes) and the laie people. His wordes are, differentiam inter or∣dinem, & plebem constituit Ecclesiae authoritas, & honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus à Deo. The authoritie of the Church, and the honour sanctified of God by the assem∣blie of the Order (to wit, of priestes) hath made a dif∣ference betwen Order (that is priesthood) and the Laitie.

Two thinges haue made this difference betwen prie∣stes, and laymen, the one is the authoritie of the Church: the other is Christ him selfe: Who beside the authoritie of the Church, by the Sacrament of holy Orders hath in∣stituted this difference of priestes, and of layemen. The sacrament of holy order is geuen,* 1.12 whiles God sanctifieth the honour, that is the preferment of him, vpon whom the bishop in an assemblie with many priestes about him laieth his hande.

This Consecration of the bishop, with other bishops, or priestes, Tertullian calleth Consessum ordinis, the assem∣blie of Order: and the Sanctification of God, is that which is geuen by the Sacrament of Priesthod. For eue∣ry Sacrament doth sanctifie the worthy receiuer, as S. Paule namely saith of the Sacramēt of external priesthod vnto his disciple Timothee.* 1.13 Despise not the grace which is in thee,* 1.14 which hath ben geuen thee by prophecie, with the laying on of the handes of priesthod. Now a priest thus made might baptize, and offer Sacrifice, albeit he were alone. But the worde offerre, to offer, M. Iewel turneth, to minister the oblation. But what peruerting of wordes is this? What corruption of the sense? What licencious

translation? Speaketh not Tertullian of the action of a Priest? You meane by your ministring of your oblation, that the Priest ministreth to the people that thing, which the people offered to the priest. and so you make the people to offer bread vnto the priest, but the priest to offer nothing vnto God. But Tertullian saith the priest doth baptize, and doth offer, meaning that he offereth to God. But if your sense be true, the people doth offer to the Priest, and not the priest vnto God, and conse∣quently the priest doth not offer at al.

Notes

• * 1.1

  In exhor∣tatione ad Castitatē.
• * 1.2

  Tertulliā. in exhort. ad casti∣tatem. Mōtanus, and Ter∣tullian cō∣demned the secōd Mariages.
• * 1.3

  An obie∣ction of Tertulliā against him selfe.
• * 1.4

  Tit. 1. The hus∣band of one vvife
• * 1.5

  Double priesthod
• * 1.6

  1. Pet. 2.
• * 1.7

  Tertulliā enemie ••o s••cōd ma¦riages.
• * 1.8

  2. Cor. 11.
• * 1.9

  Internal priest, ād external do differ. ad Heb. 5.
• * 1.10

  Tertulliās errour.
• * 1.11

  Tertulliā. Ibidem.
• * 1.12

  Consecra∣tion of a Bishop.
• * 1.13

  1. Tim. 4.
• * 1.14

  False trā∣slation, to minister the obla∣tion, for to offer vp Sacri¦fice.