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. Pag. 638.

The Emperour Constantinus in his letters to the people of Nicomo∣dia,* 1.1 speaking of the vvilful errours and heresies of Priestes, and Bi∣shoppes, saith thus: Illorum temeraria praesumptio, mea, hoc est, ministri Christi, manu coercebitur. Their rashe attemptes shalbe repressed by my hande, that is to saie, by the hande of Christes ser∣uant.* 1.2 So likevvise S. Augustine saith to the Donatistes: An fortè de religione fas non est vt dicat Imperator, vel quos miserit Im∣perator? Cur ergo ad Imperatorem legati vestri venerant? Is it not lavvful, that the Emperour, or the Emperours deputie shoulde pronounce in a case of Religion? VVherefore then vvent your ovvne Am∣bassadours to the Emperour?

Harding.

If you had said M. Iewel that Constantinus in his epi∣stle to the Nicomedians, had threatned to pounishe Bi∣shoppes, and Priestes, that were Arians, that is, cursed, and abominable heretiques, you had in some parte said the truthe. But where you saie, that he spake of the wilful errours, and heresies of Priestes and Bishoppes, and adde not Arian Priestes, and Arian Bishoppes, you conceele parte of the true Storie, and declare your malicious hart against Priestes, and Bishoppes. But to leaue that can∣kred spite of yours to the iudgement of God, why doo ye not report the Emperours wordes, as they are in your authour Theodoritus?* 1.3 Wil you neuer leaue this your accustomed vile corruption? Theodoritus saith not as you reporte, but thus:* 1.4 Quòd si quis audacter inconsultéque ad memoriam & laudē pestium illarū exarserit, illius statim au∣dacia, ministri Dei, hoc est mea executione coercebitur. If any man be inflamed boldely and incircumspectly at the remembrance and cōmendation of those wicked and pe∣stilent heretiques, his boldenes shal be repressed straight∣waie by execution done by me, that am the minister of God. And these threatning wordes of the Emperour are to be referred to the people of Nicodemia, for to them the epistle was directed. And hauing tēporal iurisdiction, as power of life, and death ouer them, he put that terrour into their hartes, that they should be neither in loue, nor in admiration of those accursed Bishoppes, whom he had bannished for the Arian heresie. Or if M. Iewel wil haue those wordes of the Emperour to be referred, as wel to the Bishoppes, and Priestes, as to the laie people: Let him vnderstand, that, as it is lawful for any Prince to pounish heretiques that are excommunicate by the

Churche, and deliuered to the secular power, be they Bishoppes or priestes: So it was lawful for Constantine to pounishe these wicked Arian Bishoppes excommuni∣cated, and accused by the. 318. Bishoppes in the Councel of Nice. And as the prince that now as an executour of Iustice pounisheth heretikes by death, is not for that cō∣sideration, neither iudge in causes of heresie, nor supreme gouernour of the Churche: So Constantine at that time had no iurisdiction ouer Bishoppes in ecclesiastical cau∣ses, albeit he bannished them, and threatned them other pounishmēt, if they fel in loue of those cursed Arians. For the princes threatning of pounishment for heresie, is no argument to build a superioritie in ecclesiastical causes.

As for the place whiche you bring out of S. Augu∣stine, you brought it before in your Replie, to proue, that Emperours might receiue Appeales in ecclesiastical cau∣ses.* 1.5 And a sufficient answere was made vnto it in the Returne of Vntruthes vpon you. Why conceele you that? If you had ben studious of the truthe for Goddes sake, you should haue yelded vnto it, or if you had iud∣ged it false, haue confuted it, and not let it passe in si∣lence, and now trouble the Reader with the same stuffe againe.

But peraduenture you wil saie, that you neuer sawe that booke, and therefore that you dissemble not the an∣swer. If it were credible, that you would not see a booke written directely against you, and one that tou∣cheth you so neare, this excuse were tolerable. But seing it hath no colour of truthe, there can be litle pre∣tended to saue you from the gilte of dissimulation and hypocrisie in this case. I answere you therefore, as

he did S. Augustine spake in that place against the stub∣borne Donatistes, of whom Parmenianus was one, whiche complained that the Emperour Constantine, (eos ad campum, id est, ad supplicium duci iussit) commaun∣ded them to be brought foorth into the fielde, that is, to pounishement. And in reasoning against him, he tooke aduantage of his owne doinges, not as allowing the Ap∣peale to the Emperour, but as prouing him vnreasona∣ble, who for aduantage would appeale to the Empe∣rour, and when the Emperour had pronounced sen∣tence against him, would striue and repine at the sen∣tence, and saie, that he being a temporal prince, ought not to pounishe Bishoppes. Like as if you M. Iewel (hauing made the Queene supreme gouernour of your Churche) should saie, in case you were condemned of heresie, or of Simonie by the Prince, Her grace ought not to condemne me in these cases: a Catholique that flattereth her not with that title, would reason a∣gainst you, and saie: No sir? Is it not laweful for the Queene to condemne you in a case of heresie, and Simo∣nie? Why then made you the Queene supreme gouer∣nour of your Churche? Euen so did S. Augustine rea∣son against the Donatistes. And bicause by their ap∣peale to his Maiestie they had chosen him iudge in their cause, and after said, he could not condemne them: S. Augustine vsed their owne weapon against them, to cō∣uince their folie, and said as you saie. Is it not lawful, that the Emperour, or the Emperours deputie should pro∣nounce in a case of Religion? Wherefore then went your owne Ambassadours to the Emperour? &c. But as the Catholique reasoning in suche wise against you, can not

be said by that to allowe the Queenes supremacie: So S. Augustine in this talke against the Donatistes, can not be said to allowe the Emperours authoritie in condemning of Bishoppes, and other ecclesiastical causes. For he an∣swering an other Donatiste that said,* 1.6 Non debuit episco∣pus proconsulari iudicio purgari, a Bishop ought not to make his purgation before a temporal magistrate, said, If he be worthy to be blamed, whom the temporal iudge hath absolued, whereas he him selfe did not require it, how much more are they to be blamed, whiche would haue a temporal prince to be iudge in their cause? By this it appeareth that he thought, that Princes could not be iudges ouer Bishoppes.

* 1.7Moreouer he reporteth, that Constantine, who ap∣pointed iudges to heare their cause, did it, à sanctis Anti∣stitibus veniam petiturus, as minding to aske pardon of the holy Bishoppes for his facte. And the same Empe∣rour seing their importunitie in repairing to him as iudge, said,* 1.8 O rabida furoris audacia. Sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet, appellationem interposuerunt. Oh see the de∣sperate boldenesse of rage and furie. As if it were in the suites of Heathens, and Paganes, so these menne haue put vp their Appeale.

Nowe sir, if he had ben of the minde that you ima∣gine, or had thought it lawful for Constantine to heare, and determine ecclesiastical causes, or a right apper∣teining to his Emperial estate: he woulde not haue tolde vs, that he thought it a faulte to intermedle in suche matters, and therefore asked pardone of the holy Bishoppes. Neither would so wise an Empe∣rour,

seing those Bishoppes appealing in that cause, haue d••t••sted their doinges, and cried, O rabida furoris audacia, oh the desperate boldnesse of rage and furie. Wherefore M. Iewel, neither this facte of Constantine, nor that au∣thoritie of S. Augustine, can furder your pretended con∣uention of Bishoppes before Ciuil Magistrates. Let vs see what foloweth.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Theodorit. li. 1. c. 19.
• * 1.2

  August. cō∣tra epist. Parme. li. 1. cap. 7.
• * 1.3

  M. Ievvels corruptiō
• * 1.4

  Theodorit. lib. 1. cap. 19.
• * 1.5

  Art. 4. fol. 104. 105, 106.
• * 1.6

  Augusti∣nus epist. 162.
• * 1.7

  Ibidem.
• * 1.8

  Optatus li. 1. cōtra Parmen.