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 6. Chapter, defending M. Fekenham and others of wilful and malitious ignorance for not taking the Othe.

NOw are M. Fekenham and M. Horne come to cople and ioyne together in the principal mat∣ter. M. Fekenham first saieth, he neither know∣eth this kīd of supremacy that M. Horn auow∣cheth, nor yet any way how to achiue or ob∣tain to any such knowledge. M. Horne saith he might well put M. Fekenham to his prouf that he is not ignorāt. But by the way, I trow of some meritoriouse supererogation, or as one fearing no ieberdy, he aduentureth the prouf himself that M. Fekenham is not ignorant of this supremacy, and further to binde M. Fekenham the deaper to him for his ex∣ceding kindnes,* 1.1 wil shew for M. Fekenhams better excuse (o gentle and louing hart) that M. Fekenham is not ignorāt of simplicity, but of wilfulnes and plain malice.

As touching this threfolde ignorance, by M. Horne al∣leaged out of the bookes of S. Thomas,* 1.2 as I wil not stycke with him for that distinction, so onlesse he can proue by S. Thomas or otherwise that the ignorāce of this surmised su∣premacy, includeth wilfulnes or malice in M. Fekenham or any such like parson, the distinction may be true, but the cause neuer a deale furthered. Suerly yf ther were any ig∣norance in this point, it were such as S. Thomas and other

cal inuincicle ignorance, by no study or diligence able to be put away, and therfore pardonable. But now the very au∣thour brought forth by M. Horn so fully and effectually dis∣chargeth M. Fekenham of al thre, and chargeth M. Horne with the worste of them three, that is wilfulnes and malice, as he shal winne smal worship, by alleaging of S. Thomas.* 1.3 For S. Thomas saieth plainly, that we are obliged and bound vpon paine of euerlasting damnation, to belieue that the Pope is the only supreme head of the whole Church. And leaste M. Horne may reiecte his authority (which he can not wel doe vsing yt himself) as a late Latin writer, and to much affectioned to the Pope, S. Thomas proueth his as∣sertion by Cyrill and Maximus two notable and auncient writers amonge the Grecians. Wherfore it foloweth, that neither M. Fekenham nor M. Horn, nor any other Christiā man can know the contrary: being such an euident and a daungerouse falshod, as importeth eternal damnation.

Nay, saith M. Horn, how can M. Fekenhā pretende igno∣rance herein, when aswel in King Henry, as King Edward his dayes, he set forth in his open sermons this supremacy? And so doe yow now, good M. Horne, and yet none more ignorant, and farder from knowledge than yow. For not∣withstāding al your great brags and this your clerkly booke, ye knowe not nor euer shall knowe, but that the Pope is the supreame head of the Churche. Wel ye may (as ye doe) most falsly, and to your poore wretched sowle, as well in this as in other pointes, most daungerouslye,* 1.4 be∣lieue the cōtrary, but knowe it you can not onlesse it were true. For knowledge is only of true things, and as the philoso∣pher saith: scire est per causas cognoscere: And ye doe no more knowe it, then the other matter that ye here also affirme

of M. Fekenhā, that he promised to professe and preache in open auditory in King Edwards dayes, certaine points, tou∣ching the ministration of the Sacraments, contrary to his former opinion: And vpon such promise was discharged out of the towre: which yet ye know not to be true, for it is starke false. And I pray yow how fortuned it, that his pro∣misse so made to recante was neuer required of him, being the onely thing that was sowght for at his handes?

The cause of his imprisonment then, as I vnderstande by such as wel knoweth the whole matter, was not abowte the ministration of the Sacraments, but towching the mat∣ter of Iustification, by onely faith and the fast of Lent: lyke as it doth appere in the Archbishoppe of Caunterburies re∣cordes,* 1.5 he being therfore in a solempne sessiō holdē at Lā∣beth hal conuented before M. Cranmer, then Archebis∣shop of Caunterbury, and other commissioners appointed for that matter. By the examination of the which recordes, yow shal be conuinced of your vntruthe and errour there∣in as in al the rest, I dowbt not by Gods helpe.

And touching the right worshipful gentleman ye meane of, that is Sir Philip Hobbey, which did as ye saye, vpon M. Fekenhams promise and submission procure his deliueraūce out of the towre: As it is very true he did so: So it is false and vntrue, that he did the same vppon any promise of re∣cantation or of preaching in open auditory, before made of his parte. But the verye intente of the borowing of M. Fe∣kenhā for a tyme out of the towre, lyke as he saide him self, was, that he should dispute, reason, and haue cōferēce, with certaine learned men touching matters of religion then in controuersie: And according therunto, the first day of dis∣putation, was betwixte thē and him, at the right honorable

my Lord erle of Bedfords house then lodged ouer the gate at the Sauoy.* 1.6 The seconde daie was at the house of Syr William Cicill Knight, Secretarie to the Quenes highnes, at Westminster in the canon rewe. The third daie was at the white Friers, in the house of Syr Iohn Cheke Knight. In al the which conferences and disputations with manie learned men, he was, the truth to confesse, muche made of, and most gently vsed. And this disputation so begunne at London, did finishe in Worcester shiere, where, he was borne and had also a Benefice, by the meane whereof, and by the special appointmēt of Syr Phillipp Hobbie, he came before M. Hooper, then taken as Bishoppe of Worcester: where he charginge M. Fekenham in the Kinges highnes name to answere him, he kept foure seueral and solempne disputations with him, beginning in his visitatiō at Parshor, and so finished the same in the Cathedral Church at Wor∣cester. Where amongs many other, he founde M. Iewell, who was one of his apponents. The said M. Hoper was so answered by M. Fekenham, that there was good cause why he should be satisfied, and M. Fekēham dismissed from his trouble. As he had cause also to be satisfied by the an∣sweres of M. Henrie Iolife Deane of Bristow,* 1.7 and M. Ro∣bert Iohnson: as may appeare by their answeres now ex∣tant in print. But the finall end of all the foresaid disputa∣tions with M. Fekenhā, was that by the foresaid Syr Phil∣lipp Hobbey he was sent backe againe to the Tower, and there remained prisoner vntill the firste yeare of Queene Marie. And here nowe may you perceiue and see, M. Horne, how ye are ouertaken, and with how many good witnesses in your vntruthe, concerning M. Fekenhams di∣missing out of the Tower.

A rablement of your vntruthes here I wil not, nor time will serue to discusse: as that Monasteries were surrende∣red with the Monks goodwil, whiche for the moste parte might sing volens nolo: that their vowes were foolishe, and that they had many horrible errors. Marie one thing you say, that M. Fekenham, I thinke, will not denie, that he set foorth this Supremacy, in his open sermons, in King Hen∣ries daies: which was not vpon knowledge (as you with∣out all good knowledge doe gather) for knoweledge can not matche with vntruth: but vpon very ignorance, and lacke of true knowledge and due consideratiō of the mat∣ter, being not so wel knowē to the best learned of the Re∣alme then, as it is now, to euery mā being but of mean lear∣ning. For this good, lo at the least, heresy worketh in the church, that it maketh the truth to be more certainly kno∣wen, ād more firmly and stedfastly afterward kept. So (as S. Austine saith) the matter of the B. Trinitie was neuer wel dis∣cussed,* 1.8 vntil Arriās barked against it: The Sacramēt of penāce was neuer throughly hādled, vntil the Nouatiās began to with∣stand it. Neither the cause of Baptism was wel discussed vntill the rebaptising Donatists arose and troubled the Church. And euē so this matter of the Popes Supremacy, ād of the Prin∣ces, was at the first euē to very learned mē a strāge matter, but is now to meanly learned, a well knowen and beaten matter. Syr Thomas More, whose incōparable vertue ād learning, al the Christian world hath in high estimatiō, and whose witte Erasmus iudged to haue ben such as England nor had, neither shal haue, the like: ād who for this quarrel which we now haue in hād suffred death, for the preserua¦tiō of the vnitie of Christes Church, which was neuer, nor shalbe preserued, but vnder this one head: as good a man,

ād as great a clerk, and as blessed a Martyr as he was,* 1.9 albeit he euer wel thought of this Primacy, and that it was at the least wise instituted by the corps of Christēdome for great vrgēt causes for auoiding of schismes: yet that this primacy was immediatly institute of God (which thing al Catholiks now, specially such as haue trauailed in these late cōtrouer∣ses do beleue) he did not mani yeres beleue, vntil (as he wri¦teth himself) he read in the mater those things that the Kīgs highnes had writē in his most famous booke against the he∣resies of Martin Luther: amōg other things he writeth thus. Surely after that I had read his graces boke therin, and so many other things as I haue sene in that point by the continuance of this seuē yeres sins ād more, I haue foūd in effect the substāce of al the holy Doctors,* 1.10 froe S. Ignatius Disciple of S. Iohn vnto our own daies both Latins ād Grekes, so cōsonāt and agreīg in that point, and the thing by such general Gouncels so confirmed also, that in good faith I neuer neither read nor heard anye thinge of suche effecte on the other side, that euer coulde lead mee to thinke that my conscience were well discharged, but rather in right great peril, if I should follow the other side, and denie the primacie to be prouided by God.

It is the lesse meruail therfore, if at the first, for lacke of mature and depe consideration, many good & wel learned men otherwise, being not resolued whether this Primacie were immediatly instituted by God, and so thīking the lesse dāger to relēt to the Kings title, especially so terrible a law enacted against the deniers of the same, wer ād amōg them also Maister Fekenham, caried away with the violence of this cōmon storm and tempest. And at the first many of the cōuocation grāted to agnise the Kings supremacy, but qua∣tenus de iure diuino, that is, as far as thei might by Gods law.

Which is now knowen clearly to stand against it.* 1.11 And al∣though the Popes Primacie were not groūded directly vp∣on Gods worde, but ordeined of the Churche, yet coulde it not be abrogated, by the priuate consente of any one or fewe Realmes: no more then the Citie of Londō can iust∣lye abrogate an act of Parliament. But whereas ye insult vpon M. Fekenham, for that he was ones entangled and wrapped in this common error, and would thereof enforce vpon him a knowledge of the said error, and woulde haue him perseuere in the same: and ones againe to fall quite o∣uer the eares into the dirtie dong of filthie schisme and he∣resie, ye worke with him both vnskilfully and vngodlye. And if good counsaile might finde any place in your harde stony hart, I would pray to God to mollifie it, and that ye would with M. Fekenham hartilie repēt, and for this your great offence, schisme, and heresie, as I doubt not he doth and hath done, followe S. Peter, who after he had denyed Christ:* 1.12 Exiuit & fleuit amarè, Went out and wepte ful bit∣terlie. For surely whereas ye imagine that ye haue in your cōference proued the matter to M. Fekenhā, so that he had nothing to saye to the contrarye, it is nothing but a lowde lewde lye vppon him: and that easelye appeareth, seeinge that after all this your long trauaile, wherein yee haue to the moste vttered all your skill, ye are so farre from full answering his scruples and staies,* 1.13 that they seeme plainlye to be vnaunswerable, and you your selfe quite ouerborne and ouerthrowen, and that by your owne arguments and inductions, as we shal hereafter euidently declare. So that nowe M. Fekenham may seeme to haue good cause much more then before, to rest in the sayed stayes and scruples. I may not here let passe M. Horne that you cal this saiyng:

In maleuolam animam non introibit sapientia,* 1.14 a sentence of the holy Ghost. That it is no lesse, we gladly confesse it. But how dare you so pronounce of that saiyng, being writ∣ten in the booke of wisedome? That booke, you wot wel, your brethern of Geneua accompt for no Canonical Scri∣pture at al, suche as onelye are the sentences of the holye Ghoste (to speake absolutely and proprely) but in the notes before that booke, and certaine other which they cal A∣pocrypha, doe call them onely,* 1.15 bookes proceedinge of godlye men, not otherwise of force, but as they agree with the Cano∣nicall Scriptures, or rather are grounded thereon. In whiche sence not onely those bookes, but the writings also of the Fathers, yea and of al other men, may be by your sentence, the sentence of the holy Ghoste. And Brentius likewise in his Prolegomenis,* 1.16 agreeth with the Geneuian notes against M. Horne. Thus these fellowes iarre alwayes amonge them selues, and in all their doctrines, fal into such points of discorde, that in place of vniforme tuninge, they ruffle vs vppe a blacke Sanctus, as the Prouerbe is: Quo teneam vultus mutantem Prothea nodo?

The .9. Diuision. Pag 8. a. M. Horne.

You require a proufe hereof, that an Emperoure or Empresse, King or Queene, maie claime or take vppon them anie suche gouernment (meaning as the Queenes Maiestie our Soueraigne doth novv chalenge and take vpon her) in Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall causes. (.33.)* 1.17 For ansvveare I say, thei ought to take vppon them suche gouernment, therefore thei maie laufullie doe it. The former part is found true by the whole discourse of the holie Scri∣ptures both of the olde and nevv Testament: by the testimonie of the Doctours in Christes Church: by the Generall Councels: and by the practise of Christes Catholique Churche throughout al Christendome.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The gētle and louīg ha••te of M. Horn.
• * 1.2

  Tho. aqui. de malo quast. 3.
• * 1.3

  In Opusc. contra er∣rores Grae¦corum.

  Ostēditur etiā, quòd subesse Ro¦mano Pō∣tifici sit de necessita∣te salutis.
• * 1.4

  No man cā know an vn∣truthe.
• * 1.5

  The cause of M. Fe¦kenhams imprison¦ment in K. Ed∣vvardes dayes.
• * 1.6

  Disputa∣tio•••• had vvith M. Fekenhā.
• * 1.7

  Vide dis∣puta: ve∣nerabiliū sacerdotū, & Ant∣uerp. im∣press. 1564.
• * 1.8

  August. in Psal. 54. super ver∣sum: Di∣uisi sunt praeira. &c.
• * 1.9

  See Syr Thomas More in a letter vvriten to Syr Thomas Cromwel fol. 1426. & 1427. Syr Tho. Mores first opi∣niō of the Popes primacy:
• * 1.10

  The Po∣pes pri∣macy in∣stituted by God.
• * 1.11

  Though the Pri∣macie vver no•• ordeined of God, yet could it not be reiected by anie one Re∣alme.
• * 1.12

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.13

  M. Fekē∣hā more cōfirmed then he vvas be∣fore, euen by M. Hornes booke.
• * 1.14

  Sap. 1.
• * 1.15

  In the Geneuiā Bible•• printed at Geneua An. 1562,
• * 1.16

  Vide Ho∣sium cōtr. Brent. li. 3
• * 1.17

  The .33. vntruth. imploy∣ing a cō∣tradictiō to your former ansvvere made to M. Fek. as shall appere.