A counterblast to M. Hornes vayne blaste against M. Fekenham Wherein is set forthe: a ful reply to M. Hornes Answer, and to euery part therof made, against the declaration of my L. Abbat of Westminster, M. Fekenham, touching, the Othe of the Supremacy. By perusing vvhereof shall appeare, besides the holy Scriptures, as it vvere a chronicle of the continual practise of Christes Churche in al ages and countries, fro[m] the time of Constantin the Great, vntil our daies: prouing the popes and bishops supremacy in ecclesiastical causes: and disprouing the princes supremacy in the same causes. By Thomas Stapleton student in diuinitie.

Stapleton.

Caluin saith in plain words, It is blasphemy to cal the Prīce of Englād supreme head of the Church. He saith also. They that so much extolled King Henry at the beginning, soothely they wanted dew cōsideratiō. This is your second and better Apo∣stle M. Horn, that hath brought your first Apostle Luther almost out of conceyte. This is he M. Horn, whose bookes the sacramentaries, esteme as the second ghospel. This is he M. Horne, that beareth such a sway in your congregation and conuocation now, that ye direct al your procedings by his Geneuical instructions and examples. This is he, whose institutions against Christ, and the true diuine religion, are in such price with you, that there be few of your protestāte fellowe Bisshops that wil admit any man, to any cure, that hath not reade them, or wil not promise to reade them. The Catholiks deny your new supremacy: the Lutherans also deny it: Caluin calleth it blasphemous. Howe can then any Catholike man persuade his conscience to take this othe?

And what say you now at length to this authority M. Horne? Mary saith he: I say, that though it be true, yet it will no more followe thereof that Bishops may make lawes, orders, and decrees, then of his former saying: that Christ gaue to the Churche authority to excommunicate, to binde, and to lose. In dede ye say truthe for the one, it is but a slender argu∣mente: The Ciuil Magistrate is heade of the Churche: Er∣go, Bisshoppes may make Lawes: and Maister Fekenham was neuer yet so yll aduised and so ouersene, as to frame such madde argumentes. This argumente cometh fresh and newe hammered out of your owne forge. But for the other parte, if a man woulde reason thus, Bishoppes haue power to binde and to loose: Ergo they haue power to

make lawes, orders and decrees &c. he should not rea∣son amisse: seing that by the iudgement of the learned, vn∣der the power of binding and loosing, the power of ma∣king lawes is contayned. Which also very reason for∣ceth. For who haue more skill to make lawes and orders for directing of mens consciences, then such whose whole study and office consisteth in instructing and refourming mens consciences? But Maister Fekenham doth not rea∣son so, but thus. It is blasphemy to call the Prince heade of the Church: Ergo Maister Fekenham can not with saufe conscience take the othe of the supremacy, and that the Prince is the supreme head. Againe the Prince hath no au∣thority or iurisdiction to binde or lose, or to excommuni∣cate: Ergo, M. Fekenham can not be persuaded to swere to that statute that annexeth and vniteth al iurisdiction to the Prince, and to swere that the Prince is supreme gouernour in all causes Ecclesiastical. These be no childish matters M. Horne. Leaue of this your fonde and childishe dealings, and make vs a directe answere to the arguments as M. Feken∣ham proposeth them to you: and soyle them well and suf∣ficiently, and then finde faulte with him, yf ye wil, for re∣fusing the othe. But then am I sure, ye wil not be ouer hastie vpon him, but wyll geue him a breathing tyme for this seuē yeres at the least, and for your life to. For as long as your name is Robert Horne ye shall neuer be able to soyle them. Neither thinke you, that in matters of suche importance, wise men and such as haue the feare of God before their eies, wil be carried away from the Catholike faith with such kind of aunsweres.

The words of Iohn Caluin, be manifest, and cā not be a∣uoided. He saith. Erāt blasphemi, cū vocarēt ipsum Sūmū caput

Ecclesiae sub Christo. They were blasphemous, whē they cal∣led him (he meaneth kinge Henry .8.) the Supreme head of the Church vnder Christ. And who were those that Cal∣uin calleth here blasphemous? You would M. Horne your Reader should thinke, that he meaned the Papistes, for you referre that matter to M. Fekenhams knowledge, saying to him, You knowe who they were, & caet. as though they were of M. Fekenhams friendes, that is to say, Catholikes, as he by Gods grace is. And so ful wisely bableth M. Nowel in hys second Reproufe against M. Dorman. But that Caluin mea∣neth herein plainely and out of all doubte the Protestants and his owne dere brethern, it is most euidēt by his wordes immediatly folowing, which are these. Hoc certè fuit nimiū: sed tamen sepultum hoc maneat, quia peccârunt inconsiderato zelo. Suerly this was to much. But let it lie buried, for that they offended by inconsiderate zele. Tel me nowe of good felowship M. Horne, were they M. Feckenhams frendes, or youres, were they Catholikes, or Protestants, that Caluin here so gently excuseth, wishing the matter to be forgottē, and attributing it rather to want of dewe consideration, and to zele, then to willfull malice, or sinnefull ignoraunce? Euidēt it is he spake of his brethern protestants of Englād, and for their sakes he wisheth the matter might be forgot∣ten. With the like passion of pity, in his commentaries vpō S. Paule to the Corinthians, whē he cometh to there words alleaged there of the Apostle. Hoc est corpus meum: This is my body, remembring the ioyly concent of his bretherne about that matter, he saith. Non recensebo infaelices pugnas, quae de sensu istorum verborum, Ecclesiam nostro tempore exer∣cuerunt. Vtinam potius liceat perpetua obliuione eorum memo∣riam obruere. I will not reaken vp, the vnhappy combats,

that haue exercised the Church in our time, about the sense of these words. I would rather they might ones vtterly be forgotten. And by and by he reiecteth the opinion of Ca∣rolostadius, calling it insul••um cōmentum, a doltish deuise. I say then of Caluin: the bemoning of the matter, betrayeth his meaning. It is not his maner perdy, to bemone the Pa∣pistes. Protestants then nedes must they be, whome Caluin there calleth blasphemous.

But here note good Reader what shiftes these fellowes haue, when they are pressed to see the truthe. M. Nowell laieth al the fault to false reporters, and as Caluin pitied him and his felowes for inconsiderat zele, so he pitieth Caluin againe for incōsiderat beleuing of false reporters. But what a foolish pitie this was, on M. Nowells part, and how vnsa∣uerly he soluteth this obiection, I leaue it to M. Dorman, who will I doubt not, sufficiently discouer his exceding fo∣ly herein. Thus then M. Nowell. But what shifte hath M. Horne? Forsothe full wilely and closely he stealeth cleane away, from the matter it self, framing to M. Feckenham an argumente, whiche the basest Logicioner of a hundred woulde be ashamed lo vtter. And thus with folie on the one side, and crafte on the other side, willfulnes ouerco∣meth, heresie contineweth, and the obiection is vnan∣swered.

Yet to presse it a litle more, for such as haue eies, and shut thē not against the light, you shal vnderstād, that Iohn Cal∣uin was offended not only with his brethern of Englād, but also with those of Germany, yea and of his own neighbors about him, for attributing to Princes the spirituall gouerne∣mēt, which M. Horn auoucheth, to be the principall parte of the Princes royall power. In the booke and leafe before no∣ted

he saith. Sed interea sunt homines inconsiderati, qui faciūt illos nimis spirituales. Et hoc vitium passim regnat in Germa∣nia. In his etiam regionibus nimium grassatur. Et nunc sentimus quales fructus nascantur, ex illa radice, quòd scilicet principes et quicunque potiuntur imperio, putent se ita spirituales esse, vt nullum sit amplius Ecclesiasticum Regimen. Et hoc sacrilegium apud eos grassatur, quia non possunt metiri suum officium certis & legitimis finibus: sed non putant posse se regnare, nisi aboleāt omnem Ecclesiae authoritatē, & sint summi iudices tam in do∣ctrina, quàm in toto spirituali regimine. But in the meane while there are vnaduised persons, which doe make thē (he meaneth Lay Princes) to spirituall. And this ouersight ray∣neth most in Germany. In these Countres also it procedeth ouermuch. And nowe we feele what fruytes springe vp of that roote: verely, that Princes and al such as do beare rule, think thē selues nowe so spirituall, that there is no more any Ecclesiastical gouernemēt. And this sacrilege taketh place among thē, bicause they can not measure their office, with∣in certayn and lawful boundes. But are persuaded, that their kingdome is nothinge, except they abolish all Authority of the Church, and become them selues the Supreme Iudges, as wel in doctrine, as in al kinde of Spirituall gouernement. Hitherto Iohn Caluin.

If M. Feckenham or any Catholike subiecte of England had said or writē so much, you would haue charged him M. Horn with an vnkind meaning to the Prince ād to the State, yea and say, that he bereueth and spolyeth the Prince of the principall part of her royall power. But now that Caluin saith it, a man by you not onely estemed, but authorised also so farre as is aboue sayd, what saye you to it M. Horne, or what can you possybly deuise to say? He calleth yt plaine

sacrilege, that princes can not measure and limit their po∣wer, but that they must become the supreme Iudges in all Ecclesiasticall gouernement. And doe not you M. Horne defend, that princes not onely may, but oughte also to be the Supreme Gouernours in all Ecclesiasticall causes? All, I say, nay you say your selfe, without exception. For if (say you) ye excepte or take away any thinge, yt ys not all.

You thē M. Horn that auouch so sternly, that the Prince must haue al supreme gouernement, in matters Ecclesiasti∣call, answer to your Maister, to your Apostle, and to your Idoll Iohn Caluin of Geneua, and satisfie his complaynte, complayning and lamenting, that Princes wil be the Supreme Iudges, as well in doctrine, as in all kinde of Spirituall gouerne∣ment. Answer to the zelous Lutherans, and the famous ly∣ers of Magdeburge: who in their preface vpon the 7. Cen∣tury, complaine also ful bitterly, that the lay Magistrats wil be heads of the Church, wil determine dostrine, and appoynte to the Ministers of God what they shall preache and teache, and what forme of Religion they shall folowe. And is not all your preaching and teaching, and the whole forme and maner of all your Religion nowe in England, enacted, established and set vp by acte of parliament, by the lay magistrats only, the Ministers of God, all the bishops and the inferiour cler∣gy in the Conuocation howse vtterly, but in vayne, reclay∣ming against it?

Speake, speake Maister Morne: Is not all that you doe in matters of Religion, obtruded to Priestes and Ministers by force of the temporall Lawe? Aunswere then to Caluines complaynte. Aunswere to your bre∣therne of Germanie. Yea, aunswere to Philippe Me∣lanchthon the piller and ankerhold of the ciuill Lutherans,

who saith also, that in the Interim made in Germany, Po∣testas politica extrametas egressa est. The Ciuil power passed her boundes: and addeth. Non sunt confundendae functiones. The functions of both Magistrats are not to be cōfounded. Yea answer to Luther him selfe the great grādsir of al your pedegree. He saith plainly. Non est Regum aut Principum e∣tiam veram doctrinam confirmare, sed ei subijci & seruire. It belongeth not to Kings or Princes, so much as to confirme the true doctrine, but to be subiecte and to obeye it. See you not here, howe farre Luther is frō geuing the supreme gouernemēt in al Ecclesiastical causes to Princes? Answere then to these M. Horne. These are no Papistes. They are your own dere brethern: Or yf they are not, defye them, that we way knowe, of what secte and company you are. What? wil you in matters of Religiō stand post alone? Wil you so rent and teare a sonder the whole Coate of Christ, the vnity of his dere spouse the Church, that you alone of England, contrary, not only to al the Catholik Church, but also contrary, to the chief M. of Geneua Iohn Caluin, con∣trary to the Chief Maisters of the Zelous Lutherans Illiri∣cus and his felowes, contrrary to the Chief M. of the Ciuil Lutherans Philip Melanchton, yea and contrary to the fa∣ther of thē al Martin Luther, briefly cōtrary to al sortes and sectes of Protestants, you wil alone, you only, I say, and a∣lone, defende this most Barbarous Paradoxe, of Princes su∣preme gouernement in al Ecclesiasticall causes, all, as you say without exception? Sirs. If you lyst so to stand alone against all, and by Othe to hale men to your singular Para∣doxe, not only to say with you, but also to swere that they think so in conscience, gette you also a Heauen alone, get you a God alone, get you a Paradise alone. Vndoubtedly

and as verely as God is God, seing in the eternal blisse, of all other felicities peace ād loue must nedes be one, either you in this world must drawe to a peace and loue with al other Christians, or you must not looke to haue part of that blisse with other Christiās, except you alone think, you may ex∣clude al other: and that all the worlde is blinde, you onelye seing the light, and that all shall goe to hell, you only to heauen.

O M. Horne. These absurdites be to grosse and palpa∣ble. If any Christianity be in men, yea in your selfe, you and thei must nedes see it. If you see it, shut not your eies against it. Be not like the stone harted Iewes, that seing would not see, and hearing would not heare the Sauiour and light of the worlde.

To conclude: Mark and beare away these .ij. points on∣ly. First, that in this so weighty a matter, to the which on∣ly [ 1] of al matters in controuersy, men are forced to sweare by booke othe, you are contrary not only to al the Catho∣like Churche, but also euē to al maner of protestants what∣soeuer, be they Caluinistes, Zelous Lutherās, or Ciuil Lu∣theranes: and therefore you defende herein a proper and singular heresy of your owne. Next, consider and thinke [ 2] vpon it wel M. Horne, that before the dayes of Kinge Hē∣ry the .8. there was neuer King or Prince whatsoeuer, not only in our own Countre of England, but also in no other place or countre of the world, that at any tyme either pra∣ctised the gouernement, or vsed such a Title, or required of his subiects such an Othe, as you defende.

And is it not great maruail, that in the course of so many hundred yeres sence that Princes haue ben christened, and in the compasse of so many Countres, lands, and dominions,

no one Emperour, Kinge, or Prince can be shewed, to haue vsed, or practised the like gouernement by you so forcea∣bly maintayned? Yea, to touche you nerer, is it not a great wonder, that wheras a long tyme before the daies of King Henry the .8. there was a statute made, called Praerogatiuae Regis, contayning the prerogatiues, priuileges and preemi∣nences due to the Kings Royall person and to the Crowne of the Realm, that I say in that statute so especially and di∣stinctly comprising them, no maner worde should appeare of his supreme Gouernement in all Ecclesiasticall causes, which you M. Horn do auouche to be a principal part of the Princes Royall power? If it be as you say, a principal part of the Princes Royal power, how chaūceth it, that so principal a part was not so much as touched in so special a statut of the Prī∣ces prerogatiues and preeminēces? Shal we think for your sake that the whole Realm was at that tyme so iniurious to the King ād the Crown, as to defraude ād spoyle the Prince of the principal part of his Royal power? Or that the King himself that then was of so smal courage, that he would dis∣semble and winke thereat, or last of al, that none of all the posterity sence would ones in so long a time cōplaine ther∣of? Againe at what time King Hēry the .8. had by Acte of parliament this Title of Supreme head of the Church graū∣ted vnto him, howe chaunceth it, that none then in al the Realme was found, to challenge by the saied Statut of Prae∣rogatiuae Regis, this principal part (as you cal it) of the Princes royal power, or at the lest, if no plain challēge could be made thereof, to make yet some propable deductiō of some par∣cel or braunche of the said Statut, that to the King of olde time such right appertayned? Or if it neuer before apper∣tayned, how can it be a principal part of the Princes Royal

power? What? wāted al other Princes before our dayes the principal part of their royal power? And was there no abso∣lut Prince in the Realm of Englād before the daies of King Henry the .8. We wil not M. Horne, be so iniurious to the Noble Progenitours of the Quenes Maie. as to say or think they were not absolut and most Royal Princes. They were so, and by their Noble Actes as wel abrode as at home, she∣wed thē selues to be so. They wāted no part of their Royal power, and yet this Title or prerogatiue they neuer had.

This hath ben your own deuise. And why? Forsothe to erect your new Religiō by Authority of the Prince, which you knewe by the Churches Authority could neuer haue ben erected. And so to prouide for one particular case, you haue made it M. Horn a general rule, that al Princes ought and must be Supreme gouernours in al ecclesiastical causes. Which if it be so, then why is not Kinge Philip here, and King Charles in Fraunce such Supreme Gouernours? Or if they be, with what conscience, doe your bretherne the Guets here, ād the Huguenots there disobey their Supreme Gouuernours, yea and take armes against their Princes Re∣ligion?

What? Be you protestants brethern in Christ, and yet in Religion be you not bretherne? Or if you be bretherne in religiō also, how doth one brother make his Prince supreme Gouernour in al Ecclesiastical causes without any excep∣tiō or qualificatiō of the Princes person, and the other bro∣ther deny his Prince to be such Supreme gouernour, yea ād by armes goeth about to exterminat his Princes lawes in matters ecclesiastical? Solute al those doubtes, and auoid al these absurdities M. Horn, and then require vs to geue eare to your booke, and to sweare to your Othe.

Notes

• M. Horne is not a¦ble to an∣swere to M. Feck. touching Caluin that saith it is blas∣phemy to cal the Prince head of the Chur¦che.
• ••aluin in ••mos c. 7. ••ol. 292.
• Fol. 127.
• Caluin: in cōment. in 1. Cor. 11.
• Fol. 127.
• Fol. 14.
• Caluin vbi suprà.
• Fol. 106. b
• Fol. 4. b. &. 5. a.
• Fol. 104. a
• In praefat. Centur. 7.
• An. 1. Eliz▪
• Melanch∣thō in exa¦mine ordi∣nandorū. Luth. con∣tra articu¦los Louan. Tom. 2.
• The Sta∣tut of Praeroga∣tiuae Re∣gis.
• VVhy the Othe vvas de∣uised.
• Note the Absurdi∣ty.