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.

Lo, nowe haue we moe testimonies of S. Augustine to proue that, for the which he hath alleaged many things out of S. Augustin alredy and the which no man denieth. For what els proueth al this out of S. Augustine, both now and before alleaged, but that Christen Princes ought to make lawes and cōstitutions (euen as M. Horne him self expoun∣deth it fol. 12. b.) for the furtherance of Christes Religion? This thing no Catholike denieth. And for my parte M. Horne, that you may not thinke I haue now ben first so aduised vp∣pon

sight of your booke, I haue forced that argument with many Exāples of Godly Emperours and Princes in my de∣dicatory Epistle to the Quenes Maiesty, before the transla∣ted history of venerable Bede. Briefly al S. Augustins words force nothing els but that Christē Princes may make lawes to punish heretikes (for that in dede was the very occasion why S. Augustin wrote al this) and ought to fortifie the de∣crees of the Priests with the executiō of the secular power, when obstinat heretickes wil not otherwise obey. Thus it serueth our turne very wel. But nowe that Maister Horne may not vtterly leese all his labour herein, lette vs see, howe these matters doe truely and trimly serue against his deare brethern, and M. Foxes holy Martyrs to. We saye with S. Augustin, that Princes may punishe wicked depra∣uers of religion.* 1.1 And we further say, that ye are those. We say with saint Augustine, that Christian Princes may make a decree yea of death: as did Nabuchodonosor against the blasphe∣mers of God, and carefully prouide, that God and his sacramēts be not lightly cōtēned. We say ye are as great blasphemers, as e∣uer Christes Church had: we say ye be they, that haue con∣tēned Christes Sacramentes, making of seuē two, and vsing those two after such sorte,* 1.2 that the olde prouerbe may (the more pitye) in a maner take place, as good neuer a whit, as neuer the better. We say further that not onely the gene∣rall Councell of Trente, but that the whole Churche hath condemned your opinions, by general and national Coun∣celles manye hundred yeares synce. And that Christian Emperours, Christian Princes, as well in other countries, as in Englande, especiallye the noble and worthye Kinge Henrye the fyfte, haue made many sharpe lawes, yea of death against heresies. We do not, nor neuer did disalowe

these their doinges, as repugnante either to the olde or new Testamente. Why then cal you for this respecte the Catholykes, Popishe Donatistes? But will ye know Mai∣ster Horne, who be in this point in very dede the Dol∣tishe Deuelishe Donatists? Hearken on well, and ye shall heare.* 1.3

The Donatistes as S. Augustyne reporteth, sayde: It was free, to belieue, or not to belieue, and that faith shoulde not be forced. Was not this I pray you the cōmō song of the Lute∣rans in Germany, and Englande at their beginning? Was not this your Apostles Luthers opinion, that no man should be compelled to the faith? And as there are many dissen∣sions, diuisions, schismes betwixte you the Sacramentaries, and the Lutherans: so are you diuided also in this pointe. For your M. Caluin writeth, that a mā may laufully and by Gods law be put to death for heresie, as he practised himself also, burning Seruetus the Arrian at Geneua. But al Luthers schollers in Germany are not so forward. Yea some of your holy martyrs auouche, that the King cā make no law to pu∣nish any maner of crime by death, ād that al such lawes are contrary to the Gospel. This was the opiniō of Sir Thomas Hytton priest, and yet is he a blessed martyr in M. Foxe his holy Kalēder, ād we must kepe his feast the x. of March by M. Foxe. Yet in a book of praiers set foorth by the brother∣hod anon vpon his death, he is appointed to the .23. of Fe∣bruary, and so either M. Foxe or they misse the marke. Ex∣cept the one day be of his Martyrdom, and the other of his Translatiō. And whereas M. Fox saith, that there remaineth nothing of the saide Sir Thomas in writinge but onely his name, (which is a lye, and more to by a syllable) and that I heare saye he is busye to sette forthe a freshe in printe

yet ons againe, his huge monstruous martyrloge, I wil doe so much for him, as minister him plenty of good stuffe I warrante you, to set forthe and adorne at his next edition, this worthy chāpiō withal. I do therfore remit M. Foxe, to Sir Thomas Mores books.* 1.4 There lo is matter inough for M. Fox, ād to much to: for euē by your own cōfessiō he is no se∣cret but an opē dānable heretik, ād a Donatist: ād so I trowe no martyr, but yet good inowgh, ād as good as the residew of this worthy Kalēder. But now hath M. Foxe a far grea∣ter busines in hande, for he must scrape out S. Iohn Old∣castel knight,* 1.5 being not onely a traytour, but a detestable Donatiste also. Nowe al the weight resteth to proue this substancially to you and to M. Foxe, and to stoppe al your frowarde quarrelings and accustomable elusions agaīst our proufes. Wel, I wil bringe you (as I thinke) a substancial and and an ineuitable proufe, that is M. Foxe him selfe, and no worse man. For lo thus he writethe of this worthy cham∣pion, and that euen in his owne huge martyrologe, who doubteth but to the great exalting and amplification of his noble work, and of his noble holy Martyr? The tenth article, saieth M. Foxe,* 1.6 that manslawghter either by warre, or by any pretended law of Iustice, for any tēporal cause, or spiritual reue∣lation, is expressely contrary to the new Testament, which is the law of graceful of mercy. This worthy article, with a .11. other of lyke sewte and sorte, in a booke of reformatiō (beilke ve∣ry lyke to Captayn Keets tree of reformatiō in Norfolke) was exhibited in open parliament, yf we belieue M. Foxe.

Nowe you see M. Horn, where and vpō whome ye may truely vtter ād bestowe al this nedelesse treatise of yours a∣gainst M. Fekenhā. And therefore we may now procede to the remnāte of your book, sauīg that this in no wise must be

ouerhipped, that euē by your own words here ye purge M. Fekenhā, from this cryme, ye layde vnto him euen now, for refusing proufes taken out of the olde testamente. For yf,* 1.7 as ye say, the order and gouernment that Christ lefte behinde in the Gospel and new testament, is the order, rule, and gouernmēt in Ecclesiastical causes practised by the Kings of the olde Testa∣ment, then wil it follow, that M. Fekenham yelding to the gouernment of the new, doth not exclude, but rather com∣prehende the gouernment of the olde Testament also, both being especially, as ye say, alone.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Li. 2. cōt. Petilianū cap. 92. & Epist. 48.50.
• * 1.2

  Princes ād church lavves made a∣gainst the protestās
• * 1.3

  VVho be the true Donatists for sayīg princes may not punishe transgres∣sours in causes of religion. Episto. 50. Bonifacio Comiti. Fontanus li. 1. in hi∣stor. no. temp.

  Vide epist. Aug. 48. in edit. Ba¦sil. & an∣notationē margina∣lē ibidem. Sir Tho∣mas Hit∣ton priest M. Foxes martyr. A great Lye of M. Foxe.
• * 1.4

  S. Tho∣mas More in his pre¦face to Tyndal the 344. leafe. &c.
• * 1.5

  S. Iohn Oldcastle knight of the same opinion vvith S. Thomas Hytton priest.
• * 1.6

  Foxe in his En∣glish mar¦tyrol. the 139. leafe. Col. 2. M. Fekē∣hā pur∣ged by M. Horn himselfe of that he layeth to him.
• * 1.7

  Rom. 1.