Certain frivolous objections AGAINST THE government OF THE church OF ENGLAND; answered By John Jewel, sometimes Bishop of Sarisbury. LONDON, Printed by T. Cotes. 1641. TO THE READER Reader, IF thy heart hath not made a Covenant with Ignorance, or not grown obstinate, through peevish wilfulness, read, peruse, and digest these ensueing lines, dropped from the learned and judicious quill of this most pious and renowned Author; whose well known worth and singular wisdom may challenge (if not, command) your fair acceptance: He appears not, here, like David, ruining the philistine; but like our Saviour, reproving the Pharisees; reserving his downright blows for stronger Enemies, and more discovering the folly of his Foe, than the smartness of his scourge; whose sudden pen (not guilty of any thing that is not precious) carries with it the Aspect, rather, of an ingenious haste, than a studied Confutation: Which, nevertheless, upon mature deliberation, if it convince not the erroneous fancy, and rectifies not the weak Judgement of unwilling ignorance, his pearls are lost, till found by such as have the knowledge how to prize them. Farewell. Certain frivolous Objections against the Government of the Church of England, answered by John Jewel, Bishop of Sarisbury. The First Reason of the novelists. God so loved the Church, that He left a perfect pattern orderly, Novitiorum prima ratio. Ephes. 4. But here is named neither Pope, nor Archbishop, nor Archdeacon. Bishop Jewels answer. HOW know you that the fourth Chapter ad Ephes. is a perfect pattern of ecclesiastical government? We have, now, neither Apostles, nor Evangelists, nor Prophets, yet are they the chief in that pattern: Neither have we there, either Bishop, or Presbyter, or Diaconus, or Catechista, or Lecto●; and yet are these necessary parts in ecclesiastical Government; Therefore this pattern is not perfect, to hold for ever; Neither, were there, then, any public Churches, or Pulpits, or schools, or universities, &c. Saint Paul nameth neither Pope, nor Archbishop, I grant: and the Church is not governed by names, but by Offices. Every, Bishop, then was called Papa: And Anacletus, that was next after Peter, (if there be any weight in his words) nameth Archbishops. The Second Reason. Secunda ratio The Synagogue of the Jews, was a figure of the Church of Christ, and God to the perfection of that Church omitted nothing. Bishop Jewels Answer. I See not what you would conclude: Perhaps you will say, they had not the names of Pope, or Archbishop: So had they not this name Episcopus in all Moses Law: yet were not all Priests of like aunciency in government. They had other names that were equivalent with Archbishops; as Principes Synagogae, Principes Sanctuarii, Principes familiarum Leviticarum, Principes familiarum Sacerdotalium, Principes Sacerdotum, Principes domus Dei, Pontifex, Summus Pontifex, Summus Sacerdos. Therefore the negative reason is but weak. Again, whereas it is said, that to the perfection of the Synagogue, there wanted nothing: it may be answered, that to the perfection thereof, there wanted many things, as it is known and confessed. And as the Synagogue had not the names of Pope & Arch Bishop; so had it not the name of Apostle, or Evangelist. The Third Reason. Tertia ratio. Where the substance of any thing is most perfect, there the accidents be most perfect: But the substance of true Religion was most perfect in the primitive Church, and yet there was then no Arch Bishop. Ergo. Bishop Jewels answer. FIrst, this maxim is not proved, for it may well be doubted whether the most perfect substance hath evermore most perfect accidents, And again, the substance of Religion is the same now, that it was then: The difference, (if any be) standeth in the accidents, and not in substance. In the Primitive Church, God raised up Apostles and Prophets, and gave them power extraordinary, as the gift of tongues, the gift of healing, the gift of government, &c. In place whereof, he hath now given universities, schools, Bishops, Archbishops, &c. But you may say, There was then no Archbishop; So may you say, that before King Saul, there was no King in Israel: So may you say, that before of late times, there was neither Duke, nor Earl in England: so may you say, that in the Primitive Church, there was neither Dean, nor Person, nor Prebendary; And yet now, both in ecclesiastical and civil government, all these are thought necessary. Last of all, where you say, there was no Archbishop in the primitive Church, it is written by many, that Saint Paul made Titus Archbishop of Creta; * Erasm. in argument, epist ad Titum Erasmus faith, Paulus Titum Archicpiscopum Cretae consecravit: And Lyra likewise saith, Paulus instituit Titum Archiepiscopum Cretensium. If these Authorities like you not, Chrysostom saith, * Chrisost. in 1. cap. Tit. Paulus Tito multorum Episcoporum judicium commisit: Now having the Government of many Bishops, what may we call him but an Archbishop? The Fourth Reason. The ecclesiastical and civil government may not be confounded, or be together in one person: But to be a chief, or a Ruler, is a civil power, Ergo, it cannot be exercised by any ecclesiastical person. Bishop Jewels Answer. BOth these governments were confounded in Moses: Therefore, they may be confounded. And the Priests of Israel had the Judgement and government of the people. And Saint Augustine was troubled with hearing, and determining of Causes: as appeareth by Possidonius. And where you say, to be a chief, or a Ruler, is a civil government: nay in ecclesiastical causes, it is ecclesiastical government, and not civil: And these differences of government may not so unadvisedly be confounded: This is the key of ecclesiastical correction, and belongeth only to the ecclesiastical Officer, and to none other. Hereof Saint Paul saith Seniorem ne corripueris nisi sub, &c. Tradidi illum satanae, &c. This jurisdiction is not civil, but ecclesiastical and therefore may be exercised by any ecclesiastical person. I beseech you take these sudden answers in good part. As for these reasons; in my Judgement, they are not made to build up, Pro. 22. and they are too weak to pull down. Stultitia nata est in corde pueri & virgadisciplinae fugabit illam. It is but wantonness; correction will help it. FJNJS.