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.

The .11. Chapter. How Iohn Caluine alleaged by M. Fekenham, plainly condemneth M. Horns assertion.

Stapleton.

IN al this Diuision, M. Horne,* 1.1 you continue like to your self, false and vntrue. For first where you tel M. Fekenhā that the collector of his cōmon places beguiled him, whi∣che he shuld haue perceiued, if he had read Caluin with his own eyes: I answer he was not deceiued by his collector, but you are deceiued by your Collector. For Caluin entrea¦ting of Iurisdictiō Ecclesiasticall in the same Chap∣ter,* 1.2 in which the words recited by M. Fekenhā are cōteined, allegeth out of S. Ambrose his Epistle to the Emperour Valentinian, that the foresaid Em∣perour Valentinian enacted by plaine Lawe as we haue shewed, that in matters of Faith, Bishoppes shoulde be Iudges. And in the said Chapter, and in the next also, Caluine sheweth that S. Ambrose would not suffer Theodosius to cōmunicate with other. True it is therefore that (as M. Fekenhā saith) Caluine in that place intreateth of these Histories betwixt S. Ambrose, and the Emperours Theodosi∣us and Valentiniā: and you for denying it, haue en∣creased the huge nūber of your notorious vntruths.

Goe we now to the allegation yt selfe. M. Horne com∣plaineth, that the first worde of the sentence which knit∣teth the same as a conclusion to that that goeth before, is quite lafte out by M. Fekenham. And yet when all is done, yt is but a poore Quare, that is, wherefore: which may be lefte owte withowte any preiudice of the sentence in the worlde: and being put in, neither helpeth M. Fekēham, nor hindereth M. Horne.* 1.3 Reade then good reader thus: wher∣fore they that do spoyle, and so forth. And then make an ac∣cōpte what is won or what is lost by additiō or subtraction of this Quare. Yet is the first part of the periode (saieth M. Horne) darkely trāslated. In dede the first word, How, how it commeth in I know not, and yt semeth to be a litle ouer∣sight of the author or some faulte of the scribe easie to be remedied, and is to be translated, thus: they that do spoyle. &c. and afterward, doe not onely corrupte, but do also not lightly condemne, and so forth: the sense alwaies notwithstanding comminge to one. And as for the coniunction turned into a pronoune: yf ye reade damnant quòd honorem &c. which is but a smal alteration: the matter is sone amended. And al this is litle or nothing preiudiciall to the whole sentence. But I perceiue for lacke of substancial answere, ye are dri∣uen thus to rippe vp syllables and to hunte after termes. As for the translating of the worde Magistratus, (whereby ye say Caluin meaneth the ciuill magistrate) into the worde spiritual gouernmente: whereby Mayster Fekenham (as ye say) hath altered the wordes and sense of Caluin, for the wordes which is a matter but of small weight, I will not greatly sticke with you: but for the altering of the sense, I fynde litle or none alteratiō. For seing that Caluin doth an∣swere thē, that mainteined al iurisdictiō and punishment to

appertaine to the ciuil magistrate, and none to the church, and bringeth in for an absurdity against thē, that they that so thinke, muste condēne al the holy Bishops, for taking vp∣on them the office and honour of a Magistrate, by a false pretexte and title, in as muche as this honour and office, that olde Bishoppes toke vppon them, was the authority of excōmunicatiō, which is one prīcipal power of spiritual go∣uernmēt, there cā be no notable or preiudicial alteratiō of the sense it self, which euery way cōmeth to one issue. And therfore yt is true inough, that Iohn Caluin sayth as by way of an obiection, that which M. Fekenhā auowcheth him to say: And there is no lie therin at al, as ye imagine: Neither are the Fathers slaūdered by M. Fekenham, as ye cauil: but yf any slaunder be in this pointe,* 1.4 Caluin is the Father of the slaūder, whose words or the very sense of thē M. Fekenham reporteth. And for the same cause they do nothing ouer∣throwe M. Fekenhams purpose, being not originallye of hym proposed, but owt of Caluin as an absurdity against certain, that doe challēge al iurisdictiō to the ciuill Magistrate. And therfore you in attributing these wordes to M. Fekenhā, as his peculiar wordes, play with him as your Apology doth with Cardinall Hosius: imputing to him the heresy of the Swenkefeldians, that he reciteth not by his own words, but by their own words. I say thē these wordes make nothing against M. Fekenham, but plainely against the othe, that ye mainteine, and against your acte of parliamēte, that vniteth al iurisdiction ecclesiasticall to the Croune, and against M. Horne that mainteineth the saide statute. Against whome now I make this argument borrowed of his own Apostle Iohn Caluin. They, which to honour the Magistrat, do spoile the Church of this power (meaning of excommunication) do not

only with false expositiō corrupt the sentēce of Christ, but also do not sclēderly cōdēne so many holy Bishops, which haue ben frō the time of the Apostles: that they haue by false pretēce vsurped the honour and office of the Magistrate. But our actes of parliamēt geue al maner of ecclesiastical power and iurisdictiō to the Prince. Ergo, our lawes condēne al the holy Fathers ād bi∣shops: and do falsly interprete Christes sentence. What part of this argumēt cā ye deny?* 1.5 The maior is your Apostle Cal∣uins, euē according to your own english Trāslatiō, sene and allowed according to the order appointed in the Quenes Maiesties Iniunctions so that you cā by no meanes quarell against it. The minor is notoriouse by the very tenour of the othe, to the which so many haue sworē, or rather for∣sworen. Wherefore the conclusion must nedes followe.

The parliamente geueth to the prince the Supreme Go∣uernmēt in al ecclesiastical causes, and the authorising of al maner ecclesiastical iurisdictiō. You and your Maister Cal∣uin, do restrain this generality. For excōmunicatiō you say, belōgeth neither to Prince nor Bishops, but to the church. Now seing you haue for this your opiniō no better authour, then Iohn Caluin, one of the archeheretiks of our time, whether his authority, though it be very large ād ample with you, ād your brethern, wil serue for the interpretatiō of the statute, in the kings benche, I referre that, to other that haue to do therin.* 1.6 On the other side, sure I am yt wil not serue, whē ye come before the ecclesiastical bench of Christes catholike church, nor of the Lutherā Churche, no nor serue your M. Caluin neither. And this his and your interpretation, doth plainely condemne the late lawes of our realm, and geueth M. Fekenham and all other a good and sufficient occasion to refuse the othe appointed by the statute, as cōdēning so many holy Bishops for exercising that iurisdiction, that ap∣perteined

not to thē, but to the Prince. To the Prince I say, by you M. Horne, who doe geue to the Prince al maner of iurisdictiō cōteined in the second kind of cohibitiue iurisdi∣ctiō, in the which second kind excōmunication is expresly cōteined by your own Author Antoni{us} Delphinus: though you in reciting his wordes, haue nipped quite away frō the middest the wordes expressing the same,* 1.7 to beguile therby your Reader, and to make him beleue, that Antonius was your Author herein. It is not then M. Fekēham, but your Maister Ihon Caluin, and your self also, that condēne al the holy bishops, yea S. Paule and the other Apostles to, which exercised this iurisdictiō and al other iurisdiction in ecclesi∣astical matters, without any warrant frō the Prince, or the Church. Namely the blessed bishop S. Ambrose for excom∣municating of Theodosius. And so al your false accusations wherwith ye charge M. Fekēhā, redoūd truly vpō yourself.

Wher you say, that Caluins Latin was to fine for M. Feken∣hams grosse vnderstāding. what a sine Latin mā your self are, I referre the Reader to this your owne booke,* 1.8 and to your articles lately set forth at Oxford. The places I haue before specified, and therfore nedelesse here to be recited againe.

M. Horne. The .173. Diuision. pag. 120 b.

And againe Iohn Caluin vvriting vpō Amos the Prophet, is by you alleged to (.653)* 1.9 as litle purpose: For be it that thei vvhich attributed to King Hēry of famous memorie, so much authoritie (vvhich greeued Caluin) vvere mē not vvel aduised in so doing, and that thei vvere blasphemous, that called him the supreme head of the church (ye knovv vvho they vvere that first gaue to him that title and authority) yet your (.654.)* 1.10 cōclusiō follovveth not herof. There∣fore Bishops and priests haue authority to make lavves, orders, ā•• decrees, &c. to their flockes and cures, no more thā of his former saying. Christ gaue to his Church this authoritie to excōmunicat, to bind and to lovvse: Therfore Bishops and Priestes maie make lavves, orders, and decrees, to theyr flockes and cures.

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?

* 1.11And 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.* 1.12 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.* 1.13 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,* 1.14 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.* 1.15 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,* 1.16 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.* 1.17 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,* 1.18 you would haue charged him M. Horn with an vnkind meaning to the Prince ād to the State, yea and say,* 1.19 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.* 1.20 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,* 1.21 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,* 1.22 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.* 1.23 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,* 1.24 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?* 1.25 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,* 1.26 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.

The .174. Diuision. fol. 121. a.

M. Fekenham

* 1.27Hosius Episcopus Cordubensis, qui Synodo Nicenae pri∣mae interfuit, sic habet, sicut testatur D. Athanasius aduersus Constantium Imp. Si istud est iudicium Episcoporum, quid commune cum eo habet Imperator? Sin contrà, ista minis Caesaris conflantur, quid opus est hominibus titulo Episco∣pis? Quando à condito aeuo auditum? quando iudicium Ec∣clesiae authoritatem suam ab Imperatore accepit? aut quan∣do vnquam pro iudicio agnitum? Plurimae antehac Synodi fuerunt, multa iudicia Ecclesiae habita sunt. Sed neque pa∣tres istiusmodi res principi persuadere conati sunt, nec prin∣ceps se in rebus Ecclesiasticis curiosum praebuit: nunc au∣tem nouum quoddam spectaculum ab Ariana heresi editur. Conuenerunt enim Haeretici & Constantius Imperator, vt ille quidem sub praetextu Episcoporum, sua potestate ad∣uersus eos quos vult vtatur.

M. Horne.

As it is very true, that Hosius Bisshoppe of Corduba in Spaine, vvas in the first councel of Nice, so is it as vntrue, that these be his vvoordes, vvhich you haue cited in his name, for they be the saiynges of Athanasius, and not of Hosius. VVherein ye haue done Athanasius threefolde vvronge, first to attribute his vvritinges to an other, then also to cause him therein to beare false vvitnesse (.655.)* 1.28 against him self, and thirdly, in that ye haue left out the first vvoorde of his sentence, vvhich is a materiall vvoorde, and brin∣geth in this his saying, as a reason of that vvhich goeth before. Athanasius findeth him self greeued, that both he and many other Godly Bisshops for the truth it selfe, suffered much cruelty, and vvere vvrongfully condemned, not according to the order of the Ecclesiastical iudgement, but by the cruel threa∣tes of the Emperour Constantius beinge an Arrian and a fierce maintei∣nour of the Arianisme. VVho notvvithstanding subtilly couered his vngodly dealing vnder the pretense of a iudgment or sentence past by Bisshops in Sy∣node

or conuocation, vvhich he called Episcopale iudicium, a Bisshop∣ly iudgement. But sayth Athanasius, Constantius can not so hide him selfe, seeing that there is at hand that can plainly bewray his wilines. for if this be the iudgement of Bisshoppes, what hath the Emperour to doo therewith? But if on the cōtrary side these things be brought to passe through Caesars threates, what neadeth men, that haue but the name of Bisshoopes, &c. There are tvvo thinges necessarily to be considered, for to vnderstande rightly the true meaning of Athanasius in this place by you alledged: first vvhat vvas required to that vvhich he calleth the iudgement belonging to Bisshoppes, or the Bisshoply iudgement. Than vvhat vvas the dooinges of Constantius, pretending a iudgement of Bis••hoppes. Liberius the Bisshop of Rome, as Athanasius reporteth in this same Epistle requireth in a Synod ecclesiastical, that it be free from feare, farre from the palaice, where neither the Emperour is present, neither the Earle or Capitaine th••u∣steth in him selfe, nor yeat the Iudge dooth threaten. He meaneth, that it be free from feare, threates, and vvithout this, that the Emperour or Rulers, do limitte or * 1.29 prescribe to the Bisshops vvhat they should iudge. This appeareth more plainly by S. Ambrose, vvho also speaketh of the lyke matter, yea vnder the same Prince, sayinge: Cōstantinus set foorth no Lawes be∣fore hande, but gaue free iudgmēt to the Priestes. The selfe same also did Cōstantius (in the begīning of his regine) but that which he wel begō, was otherwise ended. For the Bishops at the first had writtē the sincere faith, but when as certaine mē vvil iudge of the faith vvithin the Palaice, he mea∣neth after the opiniō of the Courtiers and * 1.30 prescription of the Prince, other∣vvise it vvas not vnlavvful to iudge of matters, concerning faith vvithin the Princes Palaice, the Prince also beynge present, for the firste Nicen councell vvas holdē vvithin the Emperours Palayce, ād he him self vvas present a∣mōgest thē: They brought this to passe, that those iudgements of the Bisshops vvere chaūged by Circumscriptions. Then is requi∣red in a Synode (saith he) that the only feare of God, and the institu∣tions of the Apostles, doo suffice to al thinges. Next, that the right faith be approued, and Heresies, vvith the mainteiners

thereof, be cast out of the coūcel, and than to iudge of the per∣sones that are accused of any faulte. So that the Bisshoply session or iudgement, must haue freedome, must iudge by the only vvoorde of God, must haue the Bisshops that doo iudge to be of the right faith, and must first exa∣mine the Religion and faith of the partie accused, and then his faith. Con∣stantius, vvho notvvithstanding that he did pretēde a bissoply iudgmēt vsed none of these obseruances, but the cleane cōtrary, for as Athanasius cōplay∣neth in this Epistle, themperour vvrought all togeather with treates, menassing the Bisshops, other to subscribe against Athanasius, or to departe from their Churches: VVho so gaynsaid the subscription, receiued to revvarde, either death or exile. He without any {per}∣suasiō vvith reasons cōpelleth al mē by force ād violence, in so much as many Bisshops afterwards excused them selues, that they did not subscribe of their own volūtary, but vvere cōpel∣led by force. VVhereas (saith he) the faith is not to be set foorth vvith svvoordes or dartes, or by vvarrelike force, but by coūsai∣ling and persuading. He in the steade of Gods vvord, vsed his ovvn vvil, appointing and prescribing vvhat shuld be determined, ansvvering the godly bisshops, vvho obiected against his vnorderly doings, the Ecclesiastical Canō, at quod ego volo pro Canone sit. Let my vvil stand for the Ca∣nō: Pretending a iudgmēt of Bisshops, he doth vvhat so euer li∣keth him self. VVhereas Hosius saith, cyted by Athanasius in this Epi∣stle: Themperour ought to learne these things of the Bisshops, and not to cōmaūd or teache thē vvhat to iudge in this kind of iudgmēt, for the Prince shuld not shevve him self so busy or curious in Ec∣clesiastical things, that his vvil ād pleasure shuld rule or guyde thē, in steade of Gods vvoord, and the godly Canōs of the fathers. Cōstātius vvould haue no other bisshops but Ariās, vvhich vvere no bisshops in deede, as Athanasius saith, and much lesse apt to iudge of the matter, touchīg a principal article of our faith, or of the faithful bisshop Athanasi{us}: and takīg his heresy as an vn¦doubted truth, that might not be called into questiō, he sought by al meanes, to haue Athanasi{us} cōdēned, and al bisshops to refuse his cōmuniō, and to cō∣municate vvith the Arians. These disorderly dealīgs of thēperour, Athanasi{us} cōdēneth, as directly agaīst the order of Ecclesiastical sessiō or Synode, hovv so euer he pretēded vnder the colour of the bisshoply iudgemēt, to abuse his ovvn

povver and authority after his ovvne luste against vvhom he vvoulde. You vvould haue it seeme to the ignoraūt, that Athanasius mynd in this place vvere to denie, that Princes should (.656.)* 1.31 medle or deale in Ecclesiasticall thinges or causes, vvhich is farre frō his meaning: for he him self vvith ma¦ny other godly bisshops, as I haue shevved before, did acknovvledge the Prin∣ces authority herein, and in this same epistle he him self cōfesseth this Empe∣rours authority to cal coūcels, and citeth Hosius also, vvho enclineth to that purpose, both of them confessing, that Constans and Constantinus Thē∣perours, did cal al the bisshops to the councel, vvhich he calleth Sardicēse consilium: about the accusations and crimes laid in against Athanasius. And Theodoretus affirmeth, that this Emperour Cōstantius called a Synode at Millaine about such like matter, at vvhose calling the faithful bi∣shops assembled, parentes regio edicto, obeying the Kinges Sum∣mons: vvhich they vvould not haue done, if it had beene * 1.32 vnlavvful for him to haue had any dooings about councelles. But vvhen he abused his au∣thority in the councel, as though his povver had beene absolute, vvithout li∣mites or boundes, vvilling them, yea compelling them, to doo after his vvill against good consciencience, they vvould not obey him. Quin etiam palam praesentem regem coarguebāt impij & iniusti imperij, but did openly reproue the King for his wicked and vniust rule or cō∣maundement: vvherby is manifest, that Athanasius, speaketh (.657.)* 1.33 not against the Princes authority in Ecclesiastical matters, but against his ti∣ranny, and the abusing of that authority, vvhich God hath geuē him, vvher∣vvith to mynister vnto Gods vvil, and not to rule after his ovvne luste: they commende the authority, but they reproue the disorderly abuse thereof. Novv let vs see hovv this saying of Athanasius helpeth your cause. Constantius the Emperour dealt vnorderly and after his ovvne lust against Athanasius and others, pretending neuerthelesse the iudgement of Bisshops, vvhich Atha¦nasius misliketh, as is plaine in this place auouched: Ergo, Bisshoppes and Priestes may make lavves, decrees, orders, and exercise the second kind of Co∣hibitiue Iurisdiction ouer their flockes and cures, vvithout commission from the Prince or other authority: I doubt not but yee see such faulte in this se∣quele that yee (.658.)* 1.34 are, or at least ye ought, to be ashamed therof.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Vide Cal∣ui institut. editas in folio. Anno 1551. li. 4. cap. 11. fol. 451.
• * 1.2

  Cap. 11. fol. 447. Sed accidit saepenu∣mero vt sit negligen∣tior magistratus imò nōnunquā fortè vt sit ipsemet castigandus: quòd & Theodosio Casari contigit. Cap. 12. fol. 454. Sic Theodosius ab Ambrosio ob caedem Thassolanicae perpetrae tam iure communio∣nis priuatus, &c.
• * 1.3

  In the En¦glish trā∣slation. fol. 402.
• * 1.4

  See Hosiu••. In his booke, Of the ex∣pres vvord of God. Foll. 47. M. Caluī•• sentence alleaged by M. Fe∣kenham condem∣neth our acte of parlia∣ment.

  In the en∣glish trā∣slation. Fol. 402. pag. 1.
• * 1.5

  Printed in Londō An. 1562.
• * 1.6

  M. Caluin and M. Horn cō∣demne aswel old holy Bi∣shops, as the late acte of parlia∣mente.
• * 1.7

  See fol. .448.
• * 1.8

  Fol. 480.
• * 1.9

  The 653. vntruth. For it ser∣euth mu∣che more for our purpose, as shall appeare.
• * 1.10

  The .654. vntruth. This is not M. Fekenhās cōclusion
• * 1.11

  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.
• * 1.12

  ••aluin in ••mos c. 7. ••ol. 292.
• * 1.13

  Fol. 127.
• * 1.14

  Caluin: in cōment. in 1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.15

  Fol. 127.
• * 1.16

  Fol. 14.
• * 1.17

  Caluin vbi suprà.
• * 1.18

  Fol. 106. b
• * 1.19

  Fol. 4. b. &. 5. a.
• * 1.20

  Fol. 104. a
• * 1.21

  In praefat. Centur. 7.
• * 1.22

  An. 1. Eliz▪
• * 1.23

  Melanch∣thō in exa¦mine ordi∣nandorū. Luth. con∣tra articu¦los Louan. Tom. 2.
• * 1.24

  The Sta∣tut of Praeroga∣tiuae Re∣gis.
• * 1.25

  VVhy the Othe vvas de∣uised.
• * 1.26

  Note the Absurdi∣ty.
• * 1.27

  Athan. in epist. ad so¦litariam vitam a∣gentes.
• * 1.28

  The .655. vntruth. Athana∣sius bea∣reth no vvitnes against him selfe but agaīst you.
• * 1.29

  Marke that M. Horne misliketh novv, that Empe∣rours shuld prescri∣be to bisshops. Yet his exāples before tended moste to proue they did so: ād the Othe impor∣teth, that Princes may prescribe &c.
• * 1.30

  Then S. Ambrose meaneth against you, as A∣thanasius did be∣fore.
• * 1.31

  The .656. vntruth. Not to medle, but to beare the Supreme Rule in sy¦nods:

  That A∣thanasius denyeth. And that your do∣ings doe maītayn. Li. 2. c. 15
• * 1.32

  No man saith, it is vnlavv∣full to haue any doinges, but to haue al go¦uernmēt as, the O∣the pro¦noūceth.
• * 1.33

  The .657. vntruth. Athanasi{us} repro∣ueth vt∣terly the Prīces Au¦thority in Ecclesia∣sticall causes.
• * 1.34

  The .658. vntruthe. It is your ovvne sequele, not M. Fekenhams.