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 FOVRTH BOOKE: CON∣TEYNING A FVL CONFVTATION OF M. Hornes answeres, made to M. Fekenhams Reasons, for not taking the Othe of the Supremacye. (Book 4)

The .153. Diuision. pag. 91. b.

M. Fekenham.

* 1.1The seconde chief point is, that I must vpon a booke othe, not only testifie, but also declare in my cōsciēce, that the Queenes Highnesse, is the only Supreame gouernour of this realme, aswel in all Spiritual or Ecclesiasticall things or causes, as Temporall. But vpon a booke othe to make any such declaration in conscience, it may not pos∣sible be vvithout periury, before that a mans cōscience be perswaded thereunto: therefore (my conscience being not as yet persuaded thereunto) I can not presently without most plaine and manifest periury, receiue this Othe.

M. Horne.

As there is no difference in matter betvvixt these tvvo Propositions, I Testifie in conscience, and I Declare in conscience, although to seeme subtile, you (.511.)* 1.2 vvould haue the simple conceiue, by vvay of ampli∣fication much diuersitie: Euen so this vvhich ye call the Second chiefe point, varieth (.512.)* 1.3 no vvhitte in matter from the first, and therefore my former ansvveare serueth to them both, if ye vvil needes make tvvo in shevv, of that in very dede is but one.

The first Chapter: Conteyning M. Fekenhams first reason, taken out of the Actes of the Apostles: And by the way of King Lucius.

Stapleton.

HITHERTO hath M. Horne, twēty ful leaues and more enlarged his proufs touchīg the cō∣firmatiō of his newe ecclesiastical superiority. Hitherto he hath assaide with al force to beate down to the ground the Popes Primacy, which yet notwithstāding al this terrible assaulte standeth as strōg and as sure as euer it did before. Yea I trust strōger ād surer withal those, that but indifferētly haue perused ād waighed our two former labours. Now thē an other while M. Horn wil playe the lustly defendāt:* 1.4 wherin he seemeth to make as light of al M. Fekenhās arguments, and to take thē to be of no more strength thē is the weight of a fether. But seing he hath alredy takē so many foyles, and so many woundes, and semeth with his own weapons, to haue by rashe hardines wel beaten himselfe, in setting vpon his aduersarie: hard will yt be for him, to beare of such blowes, as his aduersa∣ry wil bestowe vpō him. Neither thinke good reader, that he shall euer soyle other mens reasons that can not sound∣ly or sothly confirme his owne. Yet let vs trie howe he wil shifte for him self. And now see, howe euen at the first en∣traunce, he playeth fowle playe and wrangleth. For M. Fekenham doth not make difference betwixte to testifie in conscience, and to declare in conscience, as Maister Horne sayeth, he dothe: but betwixte to take an othe that the Queenes Maiesty is supreame Heade in all causes, and to declare the same in conscience, which are two things. For a man maye and many doe (the more pity) take an othe for

feare loue, or rewarde, quyte contrary to their cōscience. And that we nede not to seke farre for an example, euen in this matter of Supremacy, which we nowe are in hande withal.

Though therefore a mā may be perswaded as many (the more pitie) are, through pretence of obedience, through feare of displeasure, or through the loue of worldly promo∣tions, riches, or pleasure, to take the othe: yet to declare the same in conscience no man can possibly (as Maister Fekenham most trulye reasoneth) without manifest per∣iury, except his conscience be persuaded thereunto. Now to persuade the conscience, requireth either a soden reue∣lation, or miraculouse inspiration from God (which is not to be presumed without some euident signe thereof) or els a tract of time, to be instructed, informed and taught that which we neuer lerned before. M. Fekenham therefore ād al such as feare God, who haue lerned in the ghospell to forsake father and mother, wyfe and children, goods and landes and al that in this worlde is dere, for Christes sake, that is, for euery truth concerning Christian Religion, such I say neither being inspired from God by soden reuelation, neither by any of your preachings, or writings being yet informed or instructed, can not possibly though a thou∣sand acts of parliament should commaund it, declare in their conscience, declare I say in their very conscience and hart thought, that they beleue verely such supreme gouerne∣ment in the Prince, as the act expresseth and intēdeth. Mē may be perswaded to take the othe, which is an externall fact, by external respects of force, feare, or fraylty: but per∣swaded to declare the othe in his conscience, no man can be without an internall persuasion of hart and minde: Cō∣trary

to this internall perswasion and consent (whiche no power of Princes, no force of acts, no law or statut world∣ly can euer make) who so euer declareth externallye by booke othe, and worde of mouth, that he so thinketh, he incurreth manifestly the horrible crime of periurie, ād that of double periurie: which God wil neuer suffer vnreuēged without hartie repētance. To this most strōg and inuincible reasō, M. Horn answereth not a word, but maketh his Rea∣der beleue that M. Fekenham putteth a difference betwen testifiyng in cōscience, and declaring in cōscience. Which he doth not, but thus. Betwene testifiyng by boke othe, and declaring in conscience, he putteth a true difference, as we haue said largely. Now how well M. Horne hath pleaded to perswade M. Fekenhams conscience, thou seest good Reader, if thou haue diligētly read and cōferred his proufes, and our confutation. I doubt not, but many Catholike men wil be perswaded (in conscience at least) neuer to take the othe, whiche you so singularlie contrarie to all Christen∣dome beside, doe defende.

M. Fekenham.

And for the persuasion of my conscience in this mat∣ter, I shall againe ioyne this issue with your L. That yf your L. or any other learned man of this whole Realme, shalbe able to proue, that our Sauiour Christ in his Gho∣spel and Testament, did committe the supreme gouerne∣mēt of al spiritual and ecclesiastical causes in his Church, not vnto his Apostles, being Bishops and Priests, but to Emperours and Empresses, Kings and Quenes, being for the whole time of Christes abode here vpō the earth, Ido∣latours

and Infideles, and so continued for the space of .300. yeres after the assension of Christ:* 1.5 Constantine the Emperour being the very first Christian Kinge, that we reade of: when your L. shalbe hable to proue this, either by sentence or halfe sentence, woorde or halfe woorde of Christes Ghospel and last Testament: Then I shal yelde in this seconde pointe, and with moste humble thankes, thinke my selfe well satisfied in conscience. And when your L. shalbe hable to proue, that these woordes spoken of the Apostle Paule at Miletum, vnto the Bishoppes of Ephesus: Attendite vobis & vniuerso gregi, in quo posuit vos Spiritus Sanctus Episcopos regere Ecclesiā Dei, quam acquisiuit sanguine suo: Take hede therefore vnto your selues, and vnto the whole flock of Christ, wherof the holy Ghost hath appoincted or made you Bishops, to gouerne and rule the Church of God, whiche he hath purchased with his bloud. VVhan your L. shalbe hable to proue, that these words do not make ful and perfect declaration, that the holy Ghost had so appoincted al spiritual gouern∣ment of Christes flocke vnto Bishops and Priestes: But that kings, Quenes or princes may haue some part of spiri∣tual gouernmēt with them, or rather take the supremacy and chiefe part of spiritual gouernmēt from them: I shall then yeelde, and thinke my self in conscience wel satisfied, touching the saiyng of S. Paule.

M. Horne. The .154. Diuision. pag. 9 b.

That our Sauiour Christe hath committed, the Supreame gouernmēt in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall causes, to the Magistrates and Princes,

is alreadie proued, by perfect vvordes add vvhole (.513.)* 1.6 sentences of Chri∣stes Ghospell, and last Testament: and therfore if your staie hitherto, hathe bene of conscience vnpersuaded through vvante of knovvledge, and not of peruerse opinion, mainteined vvith the vaine desire of glorie and reputati∣on, you must nedes yelde, and be vvell satisfied in conscience. You auouche this (.514.)* 1.7 Argument as inuincible. The Emperours and Empresses, Kings, and Queenes, vvere for the vvhole time of Christes aboade here vppon the earth, idolatours, and infidels, and so continued by the space of .300. yeares af∣ter the Assention of Christe: Constantinus the Emperour being the very first Christian King that vve reade of: Ergo, our Sauiour Christe did not committe the Supreme gouernemente in Spirituall or Ecclesiastical causes to Emperours, Kings, and Princes. This Argument holdeth good, neither in matter, nor yet in fourme. There vvas in the time of Christes abode here vppon earth, if vve may beleue Eusebius, and Nicephorus the Eccle∣siastical historians, a King in Edessa, vvhose name vvas Agbarus. This King beleued in Christ, as Eusebius reporteth, although as yet vveakelie. In his Epistle vvhich he vvrote vnto Christe, he saluteth Christ, to be Iesus the good Sauiour: he thinketh by the miraculouse vvorkes vvhich he hath heard done by Christ, that he is either God him self, or els Gods sonne: and he offereth vnto Christ such fruits of thankefulnes, as so yong and tender a faith might for the time, bring forth. And Christ in his rescript vnto Agbarus, affir∣meth that he vvas no infidel, or idolatour, saying: Beatus es quòd in me credidisti, cùm nō videris me: Agbare thou art blessed, because thou hast beleued in me, whē thou hast not sene me. Besides this your ovvn self, haue affirmed oftētimes, ād so doth your* 1.8 Popissh tales declare, that the .iij. vvise mē, that came forth of the East, to vvorsship the nevv borne King of the Ievves, vvere Kings, and lie beried in the great doom at Collain, as the Colonists make mē to beleue, called yet amōgst the vulgar Papists, the three Kings of Collain. If there be any creditte to be geuen to the narration of Eusebius and Nicephorus touching Agbarus King of Edessa, and to the cōmonly receiued opiniō of your Popissh church, cōcerning the three Kings of Colain, these foure, vvere Kings in the time of Christes abode here in earth, and yet not Idolatours nor infidels, all the vvhole time of Christes aboade here, but faithfull vvoorsshippers of Christe: VVhereby the former parte of the matter in the Antecedent of your Argument is disproued. Neither is that true, vvhiche you put in the seconde parte, that the Emperours and Kings

continued Idolatours for the space of .300. yeares after Christes Assentiō: For although for the most parte, during that space, they vvere such, yet vvas there in that time some Godly Princes that vvere othervvise geuē.* 1.9 Eusebius in his Ecclesiasticall History, maketh mention of one Philippus, a moste Christian Emperour, of vvhom, and his sonne also, being Emperour vvith him, Abbas Vrspurgensis vvitnesseth, that they vvere the first of al the Romaine Emperours, that became Christians, vvho also declared by theyr (.515.)* 1.10 deedes and vvorkes (as Abbas saieth) that they had in them the feare of God, and the most perfect Christian faith. Constantinus also the Em∣perour, Father to Constantine the greate, did moste diligently of all others, seeke after Gods fauour, as Eusebius vvriteth of him. He did prouide by his gouernment, that his subiectes did not only enioye greate peace and quietnes, but also a pleasant conuersation in holines and deuotion towardes God: Idolatours and dissemblers in Religion, he ba∣nished out of his Courte: and such as confessed Gods truth, he reteined and iugded most worthy to be about an Emperour, commaunding such to haue the guarde, both of his person and dominion. He serued and worshipped the only true God. He condemned the multitude of Gods that the wicked had. He fortified his house with the praiers of holy and faithful men, and he did so consecrat his Court and Palaice, vnto the seruice of God, that his housholde companie, was a congregation or Church of God within his palaice, hauing Gods mynisters, and what soeuer is requisit for a Christian congregation. Poli∣dorus in his Historie of Englande,* 1.11 affirmeth also of this Emperour, that he studied aboue al other thinges to encrease the Christian Religion, vvho after his death vvas rekened in the nūber of saincts. To these fevve adde Lu∣cius a king of our ovvn country, vvho although he vvas not in might cōpa∣rable to Cōstantine the mighty Emperor, yet in zeale tovvardes God, in ab∣olishing idolatry and false religion, in vvinning and dravving his subiects by al meanes to the Christiā faith, in mainteining ād defending the sincere Chri∣stianity to the vttermost of his povver, he vvas equall vvith Constātine, and in this pointe did excel him, that he longe before Constantine brake the Ise, gaue the onsette, and shapt a patern for Constantine to follovv, vvhereby to vvorke that in other parts, vvhich he had achieued vvithin his ovvn dominiō.

This noble king, of very loue to true Religion (.516.)* 1.12 as Polido∣re testified of him, Procured him selfe and his subiectes to be ba∣ptised, caused his natiō to be the first of al other prouinces, that receiued the Gospell publiquely, did drawe his people to the knowledge of the true God, banished at ones al maner of pro∣phane worshipping of Goddes, and cōmaunded it to be leaft. Cōuerted the tēples of the Idolatours, to be Churches for the Christiās. And to be short, he emploied and did bestowe al his seruice and power moste willingly to the furtheraūce and en∣crease of the Christiā Religiō, whiche he plāted most sincere∣ly throughout his countrey: and so lefte it at his death, almoste an hūdreth yeres before Constantine vvas Emperour: and therefore vntruely sayed of you, that Constantine vvas the very first Christian king, that ioyned his svvorde to the maintenaunce of Gods vvorde. Sithe this king Lucius, so longe before Constantine, did not only these thinges, that Polidore ascribeth vnto him, but also did thē of his ovvn authority, vvithout any (.517)* 1.13 knovv∣ledge or consent of the Pope. Nor Eleutherius then Bishop of Rome, to vvhome aftervvardes king Lucius did vvrite, to see some of Caesars and the Romaine Lawes, vvas any thing offended vvith the kinges doinges, but greatly (.518.)* 1.14 commending him therein, councelled him not to stand vppon the Romain lavves, vvhiche, saith the Pope, might be reprehen∣ded: but as he began vvithout them, so to go on, and dravv Lavves (.519.)* 1.15 alonely out of the Scripture, vvhich aftervvardes more at large, the Saxon kinges, as, (520.)* 1.16 Iune and Aluredus did.

The epistle of Pope Eleutherius to king Luci{us} is as follovveth, Petistis à nobis &c. You haue desired of vs, that the Romayne Lawes, ād the Lawes of Caesar, might be sent ouer to you, the which ye would haue vsed in (your) kingdome of Brytanny. VVe may at al times reproue the Romaine Lawes, and the Lawes of Caesar, the lawe of God we can not. For ye haue receyued of late (by the diuine mercy) in your kingdome of Brytany, the Lawe and faithe of Christ. Ye haue with you in (your) king∣dome, both the old and newe testament: take out of them the Lawe (by the grace of God) through the councell of your kingdome, and by it (through Gods sufferaunce) shall ye rule

(your) kingdome of Britanie, for you are the Vicar of God in (your) kingdom, according to the Prophet King: The earth is the Lordes, and all that therein is, the compasse of the world, and they that dwell therein. And againe, according to the Prophet king: Thou hast loued righteosnes, and hated iniqui∣tie, wherefore God, euen thy God, hath anointed thee with the oile of gladnes aboue thy fellowes. And againe accor∣ding to the Prophet Kinge: geue the Kinge thy iudgement O God, and thy righteousnes vnto the Kinges Sonne. For it is not: geue the iugement and righteousnes of Caesar, for the Christian nations and people of (your) kingdome, are the kin∣ges sonnes, which dwel and consiste in your kingdome, vnder your protection and peace, according to the Gospel, euen as the henne gathereth together her chickēs vnder her winges. The nations indede of the kingdom of Britany, and people are yours, ād whom being diuided, you ought to gather together, to concorde and peace, and to the faith, and to the Lawe of Christ, and to the holy Church, to reuoke, cherishe, mainteine protect, rule, and alwaies defende them, both from the iniuri∣ous persons and malicious, and from his enemies. VVoe be to the kingdome whose King is a child, and whose Princes ban∣quet early, a King I name not for his smal and tender age, but for follie and wickednes, and madnes, according to the Pro∣phet King: bloud thirsty and deceitfull men, shall not liue out halfe theyr daies. By banqueting, we vnderstand glotonie, through glotonie riotousnes, through riotousnes al filthie and euil thinges, according to Kinge Salomon: wisdome shal not enter into a frowarde soule, nor dwell in the body, that is subdued vnto sinne. A kinge is named of ruling, and not of a kingedome, so longe as thou rulest well, thou shalt be king, which vnlesse thou doe, the name of a Kinge shall not con∣sist in thee, and thou shalt lese the name of a King, which God forbid. Almighty God geue vnto you, so to rule your kingdom of Britanie, that ye may reigne with him for euer, whose Vicar ye are in the kingdom aforesaid. VVho with the Father &c.

Stapleton.

M Fekenham will nowe shewe three causes,* 1.17 why he can not be perswaded in cōscience to take the othe. The first is, for that Christe appointed to his Apostles and theyr successours being bishoppes and priestes, and supreamacie of spiritual gouernmente, and not to Princes, being in Chri∣stes time, and so cōtinuing idolators and infidels, to the time of Cōstantin the great. He proueth his assertiō by S. Paule:* 1.18 speaking thus to the clergy. Take hede therfore vnto your selues, and vnto the whole flock of Christ, wherof the holy ghost hath apoīted or made you bishops, to gouern ād rule the church of God, which he had purchased with his own bloud. Here againe M. Horne wrāgleth with M. Fekenhā, ād wresteth his saying, yea and belieth him to, as though he should auouche as an inuincible argumēt, that which he spea∣keth of the infidel Princes: whiche is not his principall ar∣gumente, but incidently browght in, the pithe of the argu∣mente resting in the authority of S. Paule before specified. And therefore thowgh Abgarus with the three Magi, that came to honour Christes byrth, with the Emperour Philip∣pus, and king Lucius were Christened, yet is M. Fekenhās argumente framed vppon the authority of S. Paules words litle acrased or febled:* 1.19 vnlesse M. Horn cā proue (which he doth not, nor cā not) that these, and other Christiā princes before Cōstantine had the supremacy of al causes ecclesia∣stical. For the kind and maner of their gouernment in spi∣rituall matters M. Horne alleageth nothing: and to say the truthe nothing can be alleaged. And verie litle also wyll be founde for any matter ecclesiasticall, that maye seeme to towche theyr personnes. And yet that lytle that we fynde in stories maketh altogether, aswell againste some

other part of M. Hornes new relligion as against this new Supremacie.* 1.20 As Christes Image printed in a lynen clothe, by Christes owne hande and sent to this Abgarus: by the which many yeares afterward the Citie of Edessa was mi∣raculouslie preserued being besieged by Chosroes the king of the Persians.* 1.21 Which Image also was afterward brought to Constantinople with much reuerence and honour, and thereby many great miracles wrought, as the Emperour of Constantinople Constantine doth write,* 1.22 who was present when the Image was brought thither.

* 1.23That litle also that we haue recorded, in stories of the Emperour Philip and his sonne, maketh altogether against your new religion, and especiallie against your new prima∣cie: which is the matter that presentlye we haue to deale withal. Shewe your Reader, I beseeche you, M. Horne, what was that wherein by their woorkes and dedes they de∣clared (as you say) that they had in them the feare of God, and the most Christian faith.* 1.24 Come on good M. Horne, and declare vs this. Surely, good Reader, there was neuer beare that came to the stake with worse will, then Maister Horne wil come nigh this point. For if he come ones nigh to it, he shal forthwith declare him selfe, void and empty of the Catholike faith, for the denying of the Popes and cler∣gies Supremacie (wel to be proued euen by this story) and void also of al feare of God, for the wretched hewing and mangling of his Authour,* 1.25 and for leauing out that, for the which they are commended, for their faith and fear of God. The cause then, whie Eusebius, and after him Vrspurgensis, so writeth, is, for that this Philip and his sonne, being in the Churche vppon Easter eue, and minding to be present at the Sacrifice, and to communicate: Fabian the Pope woulde not

suffer them vnlesse they would first confesse theyr faultes, and stande amonge the penytentes. Wherevnto they obeyed most gladly, declaring (euen as M. Horne writeth) by theyr dedes and workes that they had in them the feare of God, and the most perfect Christian faith. Where is now in you M. Horne the feare of God? Yea where is your Christiā faith? Besides confession of sinnes and a place of penitentes, this storie hath also a testimonie of the sacrifice of the Churche, and of the Popes and Clergies Supreamacie ouer the Prince,* 1.26 which you so stoutlie denie, making the Prince Supreme in al causes without exception. And therefore without all faith, and feare of God, ye haue stollen away all this, and conueied it from the sight of your Reader, into your darke Cacus denne. The like pageant, yea and excedingly much worse, plaie you with the storie of our most noble, and first Christian King Lucius.* 1.27 For here ye doe not onely by a slie sluttish silence dissemble the doings of Pope Eleuthe∣rius, as ye did before of Pope Fabian, but impudentelye a∣uouche, that King Lucius did all those things mentioned by Polidore, of whiche the Christening of his whole Nation is the chiefe, and so consequentlye, that he was Christened without any knowledge or consent of Pope Eleutherius. Bring foorth, M. Horne, but one Authour in Greke, Latine, or English, good or badd new or old, Catholike or Heretike, (vnlesse perchaunce you may shew some one of your late brethren, that write so, and yet after long search I can find none such) that writeth as ye write: and then am I content though this be of al other a most euident, and a notoriouse¦lie, to remitte it you at our next reckoning, whiche yet for the better keping of your accōpt, I must not now let passe vnscored. I neuer before readde it, no I neuer readde any

chronicler newe or olde,* 1.28 vnlesse yt be some of your late bretherne, or such Catholikes as write but very cōpēdiou∣sly, and as yt were abridgmētes of thinges, which doth not expressely write that king Lucius sent to Rome to Pope Eleutherius, that he might be by his aduice and authority Christened: but the negatiue thereof I neuer as I say read, nor shal I trowe fynde any so madde, and so maliciouse a writer, as ye are, to write yt againe. I referre you for our owne countremen, to Beda. Who writeth, that king Lucius wrote an epistle to pope Eleutherius, that by his comm••u••de∣ment he might be christened. I referre you, to our Britishe chronicler, translated by Geffrie of Monmoth: and to one other of our owne contrey, that wrote abowt .700. yeares sithens in lyke effect. I referre me to Hēry of Hungtingtō, to William of Malmesbury, to Alphredus Beuerlacensis, to Iohannes Londonensis, to Polychronicō, to the chronicles of Englande,* 1.29 that M. Foxe calleth Caxtons chroni∣cles. And to a number of other of our owne cōtry, which partly I haue sene, partly I haue not sene. And to come to our owne time, to Bale your cheif antiquary: and to Grafton writing thus. This Lucy sent louing letters to Eleutherius thē Bishop of Rome, desiring him to sende some deuoute and learned man, by whose instruction both he and his people might be tawghte the faith and religion of Christ. It were now superfluouse, to ouerlade my answere or the Rea∣der, with the external and Latin writers: as Naucle∣rus, Sabellicus, Platina, Iohannes Laziardus, Ab∣bas Vrspergensis, Ado, but especially Damasus in vita Eleutherij: ād a nūber of the like, which agree with our own chronicles. Some perchaunce wil thinke,

that Mayster Horne would neuer be so impudent, as to gainsay all theis wryters and chroniclers, and that as he fetcheth all his narration towching Lucius owte of Poli∣dorus: so he hath at the leaste for this pointe Polidorus on his side. Yf it were so, though yt were a foolish and a fond shifte, yet were yt somwhat colourable, to shifte from him self, so notable a lie. But Polidorus writeth conformably to all other. And as yt is true that Mayster Horne boro∣weth all the residewe of Polidorus: so moste wretched∣lie he dismembreth from the residewe of Poli∣dorus narration,* 1.30 all that towcheth Pope Eleu∣therius. Lucius (sayeth Polidore) in the yeare of our Lorde .182. and the yeare of his reigne .13. of verie true loue to religion, sent letters to Eleutherius the Pope to procure that he and his people might be made Christians. Fugatius and Damianus men of singular vertue were sente thither: which did baptise the kinge with al his courte, and people. All this hath M. Horne broken and cutte of from the myddle of the sentence, and thereby hath mangled and torne the same as miserablie, as euer did Medea her chylde, for that he well sawe, yt made no∣tablye for the Popes primacy. Whiche you shall well perceyue, yf you doe deaplye consider the cause, that moued the Kynge to sende so farre as to Rome.* 1.31

A man woulde at the firste sight thinke the doinges of the king very straunge, namely conside∣ring that abowt this time liued in Fraunce the great clearke and Bishoppe Ireneus with many other fa∣mouse men, whose ayde he might haue craued

for his necessary instruction in the Christian faith. Neither did he lacke at home, of his owne subiectes that could well (as yt semeth) haue serued his turne. And yet no doubte, this good kinge had a good and substantial grownde for his doinges. It is then to be cōsidered, that anon after the death of Christe and so euer after vntil Lucius time, there were amonge the Christians, a number of heretikes, whiche as they bore the name of Christians, so by theyre heresies they loste the benefitte of their Christēdome: as the Simo∣nians (the schollers of Simon Magus) Menandrians, the Sa∣turninians, the Basilidians, the Nicolaites, the heretikes cal∣led Gnostici, for the excellent knowledge they pretended to haue aboue other mē: the Cherinthians, the Cerdoniās, the Phrygians, the Montanistes, and Marcionites with di∣uerse other. Eche secte contending theire owne false faith to be the true,* 1.32 and the onely Christian faith: yea manie of them were taken for Prophetes, as Montanus and others. Many suffred death for Christe with those that were ca∣tholike, and that with great pacience. Among them was a priest called Metrodorus a Marcionite.* 1.33 Of the which secte euen in Lucius time, a great number suffred in the persecu∣tion raised against the Christians. Whereof the secte cra∣ked very muche,* 1.34 and made thereof a great argument, that they were in the true faith: and a muche better argumēte, then doth Mayster Foxe for his madde martyrs, that died moste wilfullie for playne and open heresie. Lucius then vnderstāding of this, had good cause to be careful by whom he receiued his Christendome, least chauncing vppō some false shrew, and taking him for his instructour, he might ra∣ther chaunge one errour, for an other, then put yt cleane away: and for an Idolatour become a false Christian. The

wante of this good choyse of Instructours, was the cause why Valens the Emperour became an Arrian and suche an horrible bloudsucker of the catholikes. This also was the cause that the Gothes ād Vādales, were Arriās. Who most cruelly afflicted and martyred thowsandes of Christians. What was then the sureste way for Lucius to auoyde this daunger? Dowbtles the very same that he toke, that is, to send to the Churche of Rome, which neuer erred in faith, and which was the principal Churche, and with the which al other Churches muste agree, by reason of the cheif principalitie of that Churche, as Ireneus that blessed bishop and Martyr wrote, euen in the tyme of this Lucius? This principalitie I say hath so troubled M. Horne, that he durst not truely re∣porte his owne authour, yea so amased him, that falling so∣dēly in a rage, hath framed vs suche an open and maliciouse lie, that who so euer wil hereafter truste him, is well wor∣thie to be beguiled.

And wil ye, yet see an other as greate a madnes of this man? As he moste shamefully denieth theis doinges of Lu∣cius with Pope Eleutherius, againste the vniforme cōsente of al historiographers, so hath he fownde letters of Lucius, with Eleutherius answere,* 1.35 wherof no one of al the fore∣sayde chroniclers maketh mention, nor any other, that I cā yet lerne of, containinge matter altogether vnprobable and vnlikely, and therefore mete, after this fowrtene hun∣dred yeares nowe at length to come owte of Trophonius and Cacus blinde denne, and be set in M Hornes boke as a notable matter of antiquity to furnish and bewtify his new supremacie withal. He layeth vs forth an epistle of Eleu∣therius: but out of what authour he hath taken yt, or in what library we shal fynde yt, he will not tell vs. The best

Author, I wene, that he can alleage for it, wil be some re∣cordes of parchement in the Guild Halle. But then M. Ie∣wel wil answere you for me,* 1.36 M. Horne: A Calues skinne is no sufficient warrant of truth. Lies haue bene writen in let∣ters of golde. Wel, make the best of it, and iustifie it as you may. As our cause can take no preiudice by it: So you shal take much shame by it, if not for the matter it selfe, yet at the least for three or foure pretie lies that you adioyne, to companie this notable Epistle. For first, there was neuer any Saxon king that made any notable Lawes called Iune. There was one called Inas, and he in dede with king Alu∣redus or Alphredus, ordeined many Lawes, but that they shoulde be suche Scripture lawes as Maister Horne saieth, drawen alonely out of the Scripture, it is Mayster Hornes vaine dreame. And in case they had so great regarde to scripture onely, and measured and squared their lawes and doings by scripture, belike M. Horne will beginne to haue some better liking of Religious men, and of the Popes Pri∣macye also. For it was this king Inas, that * 1.37 gaue the Peter pence first to Rome, and renouncing his Realme went to Rome and professed him self a Monke. Both which things vndoubtedly, by M. Horn, he must nedes find in Scripture. It is this Alphredus, that was anointed and crowned King at Rome, as we haue told before, and therfore is called the Popes sonne adoptiue. Now wheras ye bring this Epistle to proue, that the king was christened without the Popes cōsent, ād that the Pope was nothing offēded with the kīgs doings, but greatly cōmended him therin: neither the one nor the other, can be proued by this Epistle. This is a mete and cōuenient glose for such a worthy epistle: In the which also there is no probability in the world. For as other Coū∣tries, that were subdued by the Romans, especially such as

were reduced into a forme of a Prouince, and had their ru∣lers and Lieutenaūts frō Rome (as Britain had) receiued the Romaine and Ciuil Law, so is it to be thought of Britaine.* 1.38 And Polidorus writeth, that Agricola (th'Emperor Vespasi∣ans deputie) gaue to the Britaines certain Romane lawes ād orders, to be vsed and practised by them. Neither is it likely, but that before this time, there was some copie of the Ro∣maine lawes in Britain, the yōg Noble men of the Realme being much geuē to be eloquēt in the Romain tong, wher∣in Agricola did prefer thē before the Galles or French mē, and being brought vp in Rome especially Coilus, king Lu∣cius father spēding al his youth there: So that Lucius had no nede to send to Pope Eleutherius for Caesars lawes. And if he had nede, it is more likely he would haue sente to some other then to Eleutherius, who with other blessed Popes at that time, medled (God wot) litle with Caesars Ciuill la∣wes, or with any other lawes of Pagan Princes. But of al o∣ther things, Eleutherus answer is most vnlikely. For who would think him so vnwise and so vnskilfull, that he would appoint the old and the new Testament only as sufficiēt to gouern and rule a cōmon welth by? Which thīg was neuer yet practised in any Christiā coūtry, nor cā possibly be pra∣ctised: the old law, being al in a manner abolished, and the new Testament cōsisting of such principles of the Christiā faith as be immutable, ād not variable: wheras politik lawes haue ben, are, and euer shalbe and so must be, according to many incidents alterable and variable.

This epistle then, be it true, or be it a counterfait doth as yet serue M. Horne to no great purpose: but for any thing we haue brought out of this Epistle, M. Horne perchance wil not him self greatly passe of it. There is an other priuie

treasure hiddē here, for the which, I suppose this Epistle is chiefly brought forth, and that is to proue euē by the Pope Eleutherius him self,* 1.39 that the King and not the Pope is the supreme heade in al causes Ecclesiasticall. For Eleutherius saith, that Lucius was Vicare of God in his Kingdome. This, this is the marke that M. Horne al this while hathe shot at: this is the cause, that this Epistle, that hath so many hūdred yeares lyen dead, is now reuiued by M. Horne. Yea for this clause, this Epistle was solemply alleaged in open par∣liament against the Popes Primacie. And seeing that your new Diuinitie now, is nothing but English and Parliament Diuinitie: I will remitte you ones againe, M. Horne, to your owne Braughton, who vseth the same woordes. Which must nedes be (as by him appeareth) taken, that the King is Gods Vicare in his Kingdome, that is, in the tē∣porall administration of Ciuile, and not for Spirituall mat∣ters. And therfore, this Epistle doth as wel serue M. Horne to proue the Princes Primacie by,* 1.40 as it serueth M. Iewel to proue that the seruice must be in the English tongue: which is as true as that other where he saith, that Lucius sente to Rome to Eleutherius, for his aduice touching the ordering of his Church. Wherein if M. Iewell meane, that he sent to Rome before he was Christened, then haue ye one witnes more against you. But if he meaneth, as it semeth he doth, by his discourse of these letters that you specifie, parte wherof he also reciteth and among other things, that the King is Gods Vicare: then is he also deceiued. For in these letters king Lucius doth not aske his aduise in any Church matters, but requireth only to haue Caesars lawes sent him, appeareth by the tenour and purport of the said Epistle. So that I perceiue, this Epistle is an Instrument to set forth

the new Ghospel many wayes: but for such a Ghospel such a proufe is very mete.

We will therfore nowe passe forth to the residewe of your answere, where you goe about to disproue M. Feken∣ham, saying that Constantine the great was the first Chri∣stiā king. The force and weight of his argument (as I sayd) doth not stande vppon this,* 1.41 whether there were any Chri∣stian kings before Constantinus the great. This is but a by matter, and yet ye dwell vppon it, and handle the matter seriously, as thoughe all lay in the duste, if there were any kinge Christened before Constantine. But herein ye do but trifle with M. Fekenham: who saieth not simply or absolutely that Constantin was the first Christiā king, but the firste that ioyned his sworde to the maintenance of Goddes worde: as in making sharpe Lawes againste Idolatours and heretikes: and in making sharpe warre against Maxentius and Licinius, that persecuted the Christians,* 1.42 which thinges are not read of any king before him. Againe if there were anie other Christian princes, they were very fewe, and of small dominion and rule. As Abgarus, who seameth by his own lettres to Christ, to haue ben lorde, but of one small and obscure towne: As the .3. wise mē that are called kings, to auaūce the honour of Christes natiuitie, and are thought to haue ben either kings or Lordes in Arabia minore. which may perchaunce be called kings, aswel as those were called in holy scripture, which did scorne and checke holy Iob. Yf there were any of greater renowne and dominion, as king Lucius, Philip themperour, Constantius, Constantinus father, yet because either they did not ioyne theyr sworde to the mayntenaunce of Gods word, or for that their suc∣cessours were paynims and Infidells: as it chaunced to the

sayd Lucius and Philip, there is the lesse accompt made of thē. How so euer it be, M. Fekēhā ought not to be reprehē∣ded in this,* 1.43 hauīg good authors that wrote so before him: na∣mely Eusebius, Lactantius, and S. Ambrose, who all cal Cō∣stantinus the first Emperor that from the beginning of the world was christened. Which thing belike they write, for the causes, by vs rehersed, or some lyke. Yea he hath S. Au∣gustin to cōfesse so much as he did, as M. Horn him self wil anon tel vs. But yet see good reader the wise and polityke handling of the matter by M. Horn. He goeth about to dis∣proue M. Fekenham, for sayinge there were no Christian princes in Christes tyme, and for his relief, brīgeth me forth Abgarus and the thre wise men, but so as he semeth to take it, but for a fable. And therfore he sayth, yf we may belieue Eu¦sebius and Nicephorus: againe, yf there be any creditte to be ge∣uen to the popish Church concerning the .3. kings: and doth no∣thing vnderstād, that the more he defaceth their kingdoms, the more he defaceth his own answere, and strengtheneth his aduersaries argument.

M Horn. The .155. Diuision. pag. 94. b.

Thus it is made manifest, that bothe your argument faileth in truthe of (.521.)* 1.44 matter, and you your self vvere beguiled through ignorāce, by (.522.)* 1.45 vvante of reading. But put the case that your antecedent vvere true, yet is it a faulty fallax made à dicto secundùm quid, ad simpliciter, and the consequent follovveth not, for that there is more conteined in the conclusion, than the antecedent doth comprehende, vvhich is such an euill fauoured forme of argument, that yonge studentes in the scholes vvoulde be ashamed therof. The Donatistes made the like obiectiō against the catholique fathers, vvherto S. Augustine maketh ansvvere. The state of the Apostles time, is o∣therwise to be thought of, than this time, all thinges muste be doon in their time: In the Apostles time, this prophecy was yet in fulfillīg:* 1.46 wherfore do the Heathē rage, ād the people muse vpō vaine thinges? The kinges of the earth set them selues, and

the Princes consult together against the Lorde and his Christ. As yet that was not in hande which is spoken a litle after in the same psalme: and nowe ye kings vnderstand, be learned ye Iudges on the earth, serue the Lorde in feare, and ioy in him with reuerēce. Therfore seing that as yet in the Apostles time, kinges serued not the Lorde, but still did deuise vaine thinges against God and his Christ, that al the foresayinges of the Pro∣phete might be fulfilled, than truely impieties coulde not be inhibited by prīces Lawes, but rather be mainteyned. For such was the order of the times, that both the Iewes shoulde kill the preachers of Christ, thinking to doo God good seruice ther∣in, as Christ had forspoken: and also the gentiles shoulde rage against the Christians, that the martyrs might winne the victo∣ry thorough pacience. But after that this began to be fulfilled which is writen:* 1.47 And al the kinges of the earth shal woorship him, and al the nations shal serue him: what man, onlesse he be not wel in his wittes, wil say that Kinges ought not to haue a special regarde for the Church of Christ, and al manner god∣lines amongest their subiectes?

Stapleton.

We haue declared, that M. Fekenham his saying of Cō∣stantinus the great, and the first Christian king may be born in a right good sense, ād also that he speaketh therein agrea∣ble to most auncient and lerned writers. And if he were de∣ceyued, as ye write, by ignorance and want of reading (which is of your part a mere slaūderous lye) the pyth yet of his ar∣gument standing vppon the saying of S. Paule, is nothinge therby blemished.* 1.48 And of al men you may worse lay igno∣rance to his charge, that haue vttered in this very parte and parcel of your answere not only so much grosse ignorance, but so exceding and cākred malice, especially in the story of king Lucius. And here also yet ones againe to compare M. Fekenham with the Donatists for framing an argument frō

the vse and exāples of the Apostles, and of the primitiue Churche: wherein beside your malice, you bewraye your owne vnskilfulnes. For this redoundeth altogether vppon you, and your owne fellowes. For wherein resteth all your eloquence against the Catholike Churche, but that it is not conformable nowe to Christes, and the Apostles tyme, and to the primitiue Churche? Namely touching in∣uocation of Saints, suffrages for the dead: touching adoratiō and eleuation of the blessed Eucharistia, the minglinge of water and wyne, receyuing vnder one kinde, sole recey∣uing, and a number of the like? Yea and before that any Prince woulde say or doe for you, you coulde M. Horne with your fellowes play the Donatists in dede, and inueigh against the tēporalties of Bishops, agaīst their lordely trayne and reuenewes, because forsoth the Apostles were poore, and vsed no such ioylyte. But nowe who more ioyly then M. Horne himselfe, or who more lordely then your Lord∣ships are?* 1.49 Again what is more vsual with M. Nowel (a man, I trowe, of a rare Spirit) then to make this tyme the tyme of the primityue Churche: that we be the Pharisees, and they forsoth the Apostles. That nowe we may not pre∣scribe with Antiquity, Traditions, or Consent of our El∣ders, against them, because the Scribes and Pharisees, pre∣scribed so against Christ and his Apostles. What then? Is Luther their Messias, and Caluin their Paule? But to re∣turne to our matter: Though already the Catholiks haue sufficiently answered to al these reasons, yet now haue we gotten at your hands an answere, for this and all the like: that to argue frō the Apostles tyme, to our tyme, is a fallax à dicto secundū quid ad simpliciter: that it is an yl fauored forme of argumente, that yonge studientes in the scholes woulde be

asshamed of: and to be shorte, that it is a reason of the Do∣natistes aunswered and confuted by S. Augustine. It is al∣redy M. Horne sufficiently by vs declared, that the Do∣natistes cause, and S. Augustines aunswere to them hath no maner affinity with M. Fekenham his reason. They denied, that princes had any thing at al to doe in matters of the Churche, or in punisshing those that breake the Eccle∣siasticall lawes. M. Fekenham denieth not, but that Prin∣ces may lawfully punishe heretikes by lawes: He confes∣seth also, that Princes may wel and commendably medle as ministers, ayders, and as assisters by their temporal sworde, for the furderance and mayntenance of Ecclesiastical mat∣ters, but not to rule and prescribe, as the chief gouernours of all causes Ecclesiastical: I must tel you againe M. Horne: There is great difference betwene staring and starke blind. And as busie as ye are now again with the Donatists, ye lac∣ked a litle salt of discretiō in alleaging of this place of S. Au∣gustine. For this confirmeth M. Fekenhams former saying,* 1.50 that in Christes ād the Apostoles tyme ther were no Chri∣stian Princes. In the Apostles tyme, saith S. Augustine, as your self report his words, Kings serued not the Lorde, but did de∣uise vayne things, against God and his Christ. And here might a man now, that would follow your vayne and humour, en∣counter with S. Augustine, and obiect vnto him, King Ab∣garus, and the thre Kings, that came to honour Christes na∣tiuity, ād such other. But though they had ben greater Kīgs thē they were, and that there had ben some few other lords or Kings to, that did serue Christ: yet would no wise man for the cause by me before rehersed, quarrell with S. Au∣gustine. For a general rule, is not by one exception or two, notably blemisshed or impayred. Such kinde of phrases are

to be foūde aswel otherwhere,* 1.51 as in holy scripture. As wher it saith, that the whole worlde was described by the Emperor Augustus. And yet is it wel knowen, that he had nothing to doe, with a great part of the worlde. It is writen also, that all the people of Israel did murmure: and yet all did not murmure. Such kinde of phrases are verefied of the grea∣ter, or the more notable parte.

M. Horne. The .156. Diuision. pag. 95. a.

You frame an other reason vpon S. Paules vvords vnto the bisshops of E∣phesus: vvhereby to proue, that al gouernement in spiritual or ecclesiasti∣cal causes, belōgeth to Bisshops and Priests, and not to Princes, and Ciuil Ma∣gistrats, thus you argue: The holy ghost appointed al spiritual gouernement of Christes flocke vnto Bisshops and Priests, as the vvords spokē by S. Paule, doe make full and perfect declaration: Ergo, Kings, Queenes, and Princes, may not claime or take vpon thē any part of Spiritual gouernement, much lesse take the supremacy, and chief part of spiritual gouernement from them. For ansvveare, I deny this argument, for it is a naughty and deceiptful (.523.)* 1.52 So∣phistication, called, Fallacia aequiuocationis. There is equiuocatiō in this vvord (Priests) and so in these vvords to gouerne ād rule the Church of God. This vvorde Priest, hath diuers significatiōs vvhich are to be obser∣ued: least the simple readers be confirmed or brought into errour thorough the equiuocatiō therein. The Scripture speaketh of a priesthood after the order of Aaron: after vvhich order you vvil not cōfesse Apostles, and the Bisshops their successours to be Priests, an other kind of Priesthod is, after the other of Mel∣chisedech,* 1.53 and Christ only vvithout any successour in that priesthood, vvas the alone Priest of that order. The third kind is an holy and princely Priest∣hod, of the vvhich order not only the Apostles and their true successours, but also Kings, Queenes, Princes and al maner of faithful Christians are Priests. There is in common opinion amongest the Papists, a fourth kind, vvhich is a massinge and sacrificīg priesthod: after vvhich order, Christes Apostles, ād the true mynisters of his Church vvere (524.)* 1.54 neuer priests: for that order belō∣geth only to the Apostolical Clergy of the Romishe Antichrist. Yf your mea∣ning therefore be, that Christ left any kinde of gouernement or rule of his Church to Bisshops and Priests, after this popishe order, your opiniō is (.525.)* 1.55

hereticall, and your assertion vtterly false. Therefore vvhere I shal aftervvardes in my speaking cal the ministers of Christes Church, Priestes, I geue you to vnderstand, that I doe therein but follovv the vsuall, and accustomed kinde of speache vvhich is (.526.)* 1.56 im∣propre although in longe vse. Likevvise to gouerne and rule the Chureh of God: is of tvvo kindes and sortes, the one is by the supreme authority and povver of the (.527.)* 1.57 svvorde, to guide, care, prouide, direct and ayde Gods Church, to further, mainteine and setfoorth the true Religion, vnity and quietnes of Gods Chur∣che: and to ouersee, visit, refourme, restraine, amende and correcte all maner persons, vvith al maner errours, superstitions, heresies, schismes, abuses, offfences, contemptes and enormities in or about Gods Church. VVhich gouernement and rule apperteineth onely to Kings, Queenes, and Princes, and not to the Apostles, Bisshops and Priestes: vvhereof S. Paule speaketh nothing at al in this sentence by you alledged to the Bisshops of Ephesus. The other sorte is to feede the flocke of Christ vvith the Spiritual foode of Gods vvord, vvhich is the (.528.)* 1.58 only rule and gouernement that belongeth to the Apostles, Bisshops and Ministers of Christes Churche, and of none other maner rule speaketh S. Paule to the Bisshoppes of E∣phesus, vvhich he maketh most plaine, both by the expresse vvords of the sentence auouched, and also by the vvhole circumstance of the same place. The vvord that S. Paule vseth, doth proprely signi∣fy to feede, as the sheapeherd feedeth his sheepe, ād by a figuratiue speach to guide, gouerne or rule: and therefore if you vvould haue dealt (529)* 1.59 plainly, ād haue vttered S. Paules meaning according to his propre speache, vvhere you say, To gouerne and rule, doubling the vvoordes as it vvere to amplifie the matter, that the truth might lesse appeare, you ought to haue said, to feede the Church of God. for that is the Apostles (530)* 1.60 propre say∣ing, and so the old translatour of Chrysostome doth translate it vp∣pon the Epistle to the Ephesians, and also expounding this same place of the Acts of the Apostles, vt pascatis Ecclesiā,* 1.61 to feede the Church. S. Peter making the like exhortation, to this of S. Paule, to the Bisshops dispersed, vseth that self same vvord, saying:

Pascite, quantum in vobis est, gregem Christi: Feede so muche as you may, the flocke of Christ. Christ him selfe also tea∣ching Peter, and all other Bishops, vvhat manner of rule and go∣uernement,* 1.62 as properly geuen them by Gods vvoorde, they should haue in the Church, doth expresse it, vvith the selfe same vvoorde, saying: Pasce agnos meos, feede my Lambes. To rule and gouerne the L. household faithfully and prudently,* 1.63 Christ expoun∣deth to be nothing els in general, than to geue meate vnto his fa∣mily in due season. Neither did our sauiour Christ geue (.531.)* 1.64 other povver, authority or commission vnto his Apostles, and so to all other Bishops as properly belonging and onely to the Bishoply of∣fice, then this: As my Father sente me, so I sende you, re∣ceiue the holy ghost, whose sinnes yee remit, they are remitted, whose sinnes yee retaine, they are reteined, goo therefore, and teache all nations, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost: teachinge them to obserue al thinges, that I haue commaunded you. So that the Bishoply rule ād gouernement of Gods Church, cōsisteth (.532.)* 1.65 in these three points, to feade the Church vvith Goddes vvoorde, to minister Christes Sa∣cramentes, and to binde and lose: al vvhich three partes, Christ cō∣prehendeth vnder this one saying: to geue meat to the Lords family in due season. And S. Paule in these vvoords, to feed the Churche of God. The circumstaunce of the sentēce vvhich you alledged foorth of the Actes, doth also shevve in the example of Paule him selfe, vvho vvas inferiour to none of the Apostles, and Church mynisters in any point, that he claimed or tooke vppō him none other rule or gouernement, than (.533.)* 1.66 of feedinge Goddes Church vvith the spirituall foode of the Ghospell. He setteth foorth the execution of his ovvne office, and by that example moueth the Bishoppes of Ephesus to the like, sayinge: I haue serued the Lorde with all humblenes of minde: I haue leaft no∣thinge vndoone, that might be profitable to you: but I haue declared and taught you openly and priuely the repentaunce and faith in God, and Iesus Christe. I re∣ceyued

an office of ministery from the Lorde Iesus, to testifie the ghospel of Gods grace, and to preache the Kingdome of God. I haue hidden nothing of Gods councel from you. Take heede therefore to your selues, and to Christes flocke (as I haue done) whereof the holy Ghost hath appointed you Bisshoppes (as he did me) to feede the Church of God (as you knovv and see that I haue done). This that you cal to gouerne and rule, vvas vvith Paule to * 1.67 serue with lowlines, to mynister with watchefulnes: to preache, teache and testifie the Ghospel, and the kingdome of God publikely and priuately, and to shevv, to the flocke al the Councel of God, touching their saluation, keepinge nothinge thereof from them. To gouerne the Churche of God after this sorte belō∣geth to the only office of Bishops and Church ministers, and not to Kinges, Quenes and Princes: vvho (.534.)* 1.68 may not, neither doo, clayme or take vpō them, this kind of spiritual gouernement and rule, or any part thereof vvith the bisshops, neither do they take the supremacy and chief part of this spiri∣tual gouernement from the Church ministers. As contrary vvise the Church ministers, ought not to claime and take vpon them the supremacy of gouer∣nement, as the (.535.)* 1.69 Papistes of longe tyme haue done frō Kinges, Queenes, and Princes.

Stapleton.

M. Horn hath hitherto (good-reader) proceded altoge∣ther historically, aswel in brīgīg forth his poore sely proufs against M. Fekenham, as in his first aunswere to M. Feken∣ham, by the story of King Lucius and others: but nowe will he shewe you a copie of his high diuinitye, and of his greate diuine knowledge, in the soluting of theologicall argumentes.

M. Fekenham proueth by S. Paule,* 1.70 that they are Bis∣shops and Priestes, and not the Princes that gouerne Chri∣stes Church. Nay saieth M. Horne here, this is a naughty, a duble and a deceitful sophistication: in the worde priest, ād in the worde to gouerne: and he is angrie with M. Feken∣ham

for the terme of priestes, and wil nedes haue ministers placed for them. But how chaunceth yt M. Horne, that ye put not in also, for bishops, superintendēts? Shal the inferiour clergy chaūge their papistical name, and wil you reserue to your self stil the name of Bisshops, because it is more lorde∣lyke? It is a wonderful thing to cōsider the practise of these protestants: To make a way to their new diuinity, they first began to alter the vsual names, chaunging confession into knowledge, penance into repentance, Church into cōgre∣gation, Image into idole, with many such like. So to make a way, to induce men to belieue, that Order is no Sacrament, and that there is no sacrifice in the Church, they could not, nor cā abide the name of priests. Tyndal was much trobled in the framing of some other word for it. First he translated for priests, seniours: but his folly being therein wel espied, he trāslated afterward for seniours, elders. Which word (elder) doth no more signify a priest, thē it signifieth an elderstycke. M. Horn though he be wel cōtēted with the word elders, as ye shal hereafter vnderstand, yet here he wil haue them called Ministers: and geueth vs plainely to vnderstand, that though he vse the vnproper terme of priestes, yet he mea∣neth ministers, as though euery Priest be not a Minister (al∣though euery Minister be not a priest) and so very oftē cal∣led in the holy scripture.* 1.71 As wher it speaketh of those which do sacrifice in the clergy, it calleth thē indifferētly priestes or ministers And therefore Moyses saith, of the sonnes of Aarō that were priests: Quādo appropinquāt altari, vt mini∣strēt in sanctuario. Whē thei draw nere to the aulter to mi∣nister in the sanctuary. Ioel calleth the priests, ministers of the aulters. In Hieremy God saith, that priests are his mini∣sters. S. Paule saith, Omnis quidē sacerdos praesto est quotidie

ministrās, & easdē semper offerēs hostias,* 1.72 euery priest is redy dayly to minister, euer offering the same hosts. And in the new testament, where it is writen, ministrantibus illis, & ie∣iunantibus, as they ministred to our Lord and fasted,* 1.73 the said word, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) may wel be traslated, as they made sa∣crifice: according to Erasmus his iudegmēt. Yf thē ministers serue the aulter aswel as priests, what hath M. Horn gained, by the shifting of the word priests into ministers? Suerly this is a wōderful shifting ghospel, that cā not stād but by shiftīg: ād that must nedes shyft away this word priest, which hath ben vsually frequēted ād cōtinued, not only amōg vs in En∣glād, sythēce the time we were first christened, but amōg o∣ther natiōs, as Dutchmē, high Almaines, Frēchmē, Italiās, ād Spaniards, as it appeareth vnto thē that be skilfull in these tonges. But to cal the Ministers of Christes Church, by the name of Priestes, is a kinde of speache (saith M. Horne) im∣propre, though longe in vse: and for such he protesteth to vse it, as oft as he vseth the word, Priest, in that sence. The pro∣per priesthods he auoucheth to be only thre. Of Aaron: of Melchisedech: ād of that other Order, which is cōmō to all Christiās, mē ād wemē. But ô Lord, what a blīd bussard hath malice and pride made you M. Horn? Think you it an opi∣niō among the cōmon Papists only (as you say) to auouche a fourth kind of sacrificing priesthod? What think you then of S. Augustin that lerned Father of Christes Church? Was he a Papist to? Or was he one also of the Apostolical clergy of the Romish Antichrist? Harkē I pray you what his iudge∣mēt is herein. He saith,* 1.74 that in the Apoc. 20. ād in S. Peter (1. Pet. 2.) where the princely priesthod cōmō to al Christē mē is spoken of: Nō vti{que} de solis episcopis & presbyteris dictū est, qui propriè iā vocātur in Ecclesia sacerdotes, sed sicut oēs &c.

It is spoken not of Bisshops and Priests alōne, which nowe in the Church are properly called Priests: but as we call al (the faithful) Christians, because of the mystical ointment, so we cal al the faithful Priests, because they are the mem∣bers of one Priest, that is, Christe. Here you see M. Horn, that it is an opiniō not only among the cōmon Papists, but with S. Augustin also that ther are yet in the Church, beside that Prīcely Priesthod that you spake of, bishops ād priests, ād that properly so called. And dareth your impudēt mouth, auouche that kinde of speache impropre, which S. Augu∣stin auoucheth to be properly so called, and that in the Church of Christ to? Goe M. Horne, and tel your frendes this tale. For your frēd, I assure you, he had nede to be, more then his owne, which wil beleue you in this most impudēt and most vnchristian assertion. A priesthood there is M. Horn, and that a proper priesthod of bishops and priests in the Church of Christ, beside that of Aarō in the old law, or of Melchisedech in Christes only person, or of this prīcely priesthood cōmō to al Christiās: who are no more properly priests, thē thei are Princes, and whose cōmō priesthod no more excludeth the proper priesthod of Bishops and priests in the Church, thē doth their kingdō (for kings in like maner al Christiās are called in the places of holy Scripture lastly noted) exclude the proper kingdō, of Emperours, kings, and other Princes. To cōfute yet farder this Antichristiā solutiō and to proue that this propre priesthod is a sacrificīg priest∣hod, wuld require some cōueniēt tract of tyme, ād more thē we cā cōueniētly now spare for auoiding of tediousnes. But what nede we seke farre, for a solutiō, or tarry long therin, seing as cūning as M. Horne is, hīself hath in his own solutiō proued the sacrifice of the masse? For to goe no farder M.

Horn, then your owne chapter and allegatiō, I reason thus. Christe contineweth a prieste accordinge to the order of Melchisedech for euer: the sacrifice of which order he she∣wed in his last Supper. Ergo there is and euer shall be that sacrifice of our true Meschisedech, which he offred in his laste Supper, whiche is the sacrifice of the masse in the Church. Ergo it is vntrue, that Christe hath no ministeriall priesthood or Sacrifice in the Churche.* 1.75 For as Christ offe∣red in his last supper his owne body: so all priests do offer,* 1.76 and shall offer for euer the same body in the holy masse. And for this cause is Christ called a prieste for euer, in the chapter by yowe rehersed, and in the psalmes. I bringe not, M. Horne, this argument, nor frame yt, of my self: it is Oe∣cumenius (M. Horne) an aūcient and a notable Greciā that so writeth, and therin vttereth not his owne mynde onely, but the mind of Chrysostomus, ād other fathers, yea and of the whole Greke Church. Here perhaps M. Horn wil take some holde, and answere that M. Iewel hath answered suf∣ficiently to Oecumenius in his Reply to M. D. Hardinge. What kinde of answere it is and howe substantiall, it will wel appere, when the Reioynder shal come to this Article touching the sacrifice. And yet I suppose men that be not to much and to sinistrally wedded to their owne fantasies, may see good cause, by such other answeres as are made to part of his reply, what to iudge of the whole. In the meane ceason mark good reader, what kind of answere he maketh to rydde him self from this authority of Oecumenius. I wil omitte al other, ād touche one poynt onely of his answere,* 1.77 whereby thou mayst haue a taste of the whole. First then I pray you cal to remembraunce, what a scoffing and won∣dringe he maketh at the name and authority of Leontius,

alleaged by M. D. Harding with: what is this Leontius that wrote this story? or who euer hearde of his name before? with much other gay glorious rhetorike.* 1.78 But who is it M. Iewell but Leontius that ye so hardly reason against for adorate sca¦bellū pedū eius,* 1.79 adore ye the footstole of his feat? Now how cā ye make such me••uel at him, and demaūd whē he was, ād what he was: seing your self impugne him amōg other that be alleged in the 2. Nicene Coūcel? Namely seing in the ve∣ry same leaf, wherin is conteyned the argument ye do im∣pugne, it appereth also, what he was, and whē he was: that is, such a notable father ād learned bishop, out of your quar∣relling exceptiō of your .600. yeares, that he hath escaped, and is aboue all your solemne and peremptory challenges. Truely good reader this is a straunge metamorphosis and a sodaine rauishmēt of M. Iewel. For as much as he wōdreth at Leōtius name in his Reply against priuate masse, as hard∣ly, and as stoutly as he resoneth againste him in his reply a∣gainst the adoration of Saynts Images: yet he is fallen into so great familiarity and lyking with him, that in his Reply against the sacrifice, to deface Oecumenius, he is content to authorise him for a good and a sufficient writer. And be∣cause Oecumenius telleth vs, that Christ is and shall be sacri∣ficed by the priestes,* 1.80 and his holy body to the worldes ende shalbe offred vp in the holy masse, M. Iewel to auoyd this, saith: what sacrifice or aulter meaneth, we being Christian people, in a manner can not tell. which are the words of the sayd Leō∣tius. But yet according to M. Iewells old wonte falsly tran∣slated, and most falsly and impudētly applied to that, which the authour neuer ment. And that this holy handling of the matter may not lightly be espied, he alleageth the .2. Nicene councell, beinge very long and tediouse: and neither leafe

nor actiō of it named, neither dareth ons for shame to name Leontius the authour of the sentence. Nowe Leōtius doth not meane of the aultar that Christian men vse to the ho∣nour of God, or of the sacrifice of Christes blessed body (which is the matter that Oecumenius proueth, and ought to be disproued by M. Iewel) but of the aultars dedicated to the deuills,* 1.81 and of the detestable sacrifice that the infidells did make thervppon, as ye shal vnder∣stande by his owne wordes. Theis Iewes (sayth Leō∣tius) may be asshamed, that worshipping theire owne kinges, and the kinges of other people, do scorne and skoffe at vs Christians, as though we were Idolatours. For we in euery city and countrie euery day and houre do stande armed against idolls: we sing Psalmes against idoles, we make our prayers against them. And then howe can they for shame call vs idolatours? where are nowe the oxen, the sheepe, yea theire owne children, that the Iewes were wonte to offer in sacrifice to their Idoles? Where are the smoking sacrifices? where are the aulters, and the sheding of bloudde? Suerly we Chri∣stians can not in a manner tell, what is an aulter, or what is the sacrifice (of beasts) for that is properly vi∣ctima, and of that Leontius speaketh. Thus writeth this aunciente learned bisshoppe about a thowsand yeares paste, againste the Iewes, that called Chri∣stian men Idolatours, for worshippinge of images. And the lyke answere we catholyks may make a∣gainst theis our newe Iewes. And so at the length Leontius, that M. Iewell hath so wondred at, hath confuted with his short answere al his, and M. Cal∣fields, and such other their blasphemous talk against

the catholyks for worshiping of the image of Christ ād his Sayntes: and hath bewrayed M. Iewels abhominable shifte made to answer Oecumenius, vnder the visour of this cou∣lorable authority. And nowe may al men as much wōder at M. Iewells doinges, as he doth at Leontius name: And I am deceyued if euer there were any poore owle so gased and wondered at of the byrdes, as men wil hereafter wonder at M. Iewel, for theis wretched and miserable shifts. Thus thē the argument of Oecumenius (M. Horne) contrary to your Antichristian blasphemy againste the sacrifice of the masse standeth vntouched and vnblemished,* 1.82 for any thīg that M. Iewel hath or cā say, or any other of al your sect. The sacrificing priesthod M. Horn for al your spite shal cōtinewe, and shal not vttterly fayle vntil the time of Anticrist. Thē shal it fayl in dede for thre years ād an half, according to the prophecy of Da∣niel, ād the sayings of the fathers, namely of S. Au∣gustin, Prosper, Primasius, S. Hierō, and S. Gregory. Wherfor it is not the Pope, but your self M. Horn, that with this your ful vnchristiā doctrin, ād deue∣lish diuinity, in soluting M. Fekenhams argument, prepareth a redy way for Antichrist.

There is nowe an other equiuocatiō espied by M. Horn in the worde to gouerne and rule: and that there are two kindes of sorts to gouerne and to rule the Churche of Cod, the one by the supreame authority and power of the sworde, belōging onely to princes: the other by feading the flocke, with the word of God, by ministring Sacraments, and by bynding and losing, be∣longing only to bisshops and Church ministers. Which kinde of spirituall gouernment, princes may not neither doe claime. And therfor M. Horn sayth that M. Fekenhā did not deale plaīly

in translating to gouerne and rule the Church, for that S. Paules worde doth properly signifie to fead, as the sheep∣heard feadeth his sheepe:* 1.83 neither doth yt signifie to go∣uerne and rule but by a figuratiue speache. By this reason M. Horne might aswell proue, that Agamemnon was no king, nor ruler, whome Homer calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a pastour or shepheard: or Dauid to be no kinge or ruler, whome the scripture so calleth also. Thou shalt, saieth the scripture, feade my people of Israel, thou shalt be captaine ouer Israel. Againe: whome I haue cōmaunded to feade my people. And in an other place. He fead thē in the innocēcy of his heart, with many like phrases occurrent in the scripture. M. Fekēham therfore dealt plainely, when he translated to gouerne and rule: euē as Erasmus doth trāslate it out of the Greke which hath, regere, & non pasc••re: that is, to rule, and not to feade. And your brother Edmūde Beke that translated the Bible, printed at Londō in the yere .1549. though he turne bishops into ouerseers, and church into cōgregation, yet he transla∣teth these words here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. to rule the cōgregatiō.* 1.84 By likelihod M. Horne thīketh, that there is no true rule or gouernmēt but where the sword beareth rule: wherein he thīketh as wel, and reasoneth as substācially, as doth M. Ie∣well, auouching that S. Peter was not head of the Church, because he toke vp his lodgīg with a poore tāner. Ye think to grosly ād basely M. Horn of the Churches autority. The Church hath his rule ād gouermēt, yea his sword to, which may aswel and as truely be verefied in the Church regim••̄t as in the cyuill regimente. Yea the Church regimente is incomparably the higher, and by so much as the excellē∣cy of the soule is aboue the body. Neither doth this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to fede, as the sheepherd feadeth his shepe,

derogate anie thing of the Ecclesiastical dignity, but rather doth encrease and amplifie it. The pastorall office of the feelde shepperd,* 1.85 doth most liuely signifie, set out, and ex∣presse to vs the office, the greatnes, and the excellency of this pastorall charge. The Ecclesiasticall pastour hauing as great an accōpt to make to his Maister Christ, for hys spiri∣tual flocke, that is, the soules of the peple cōmitted to him, as hath the feeld shepherde for his sheepe. This is the spiri∣tual Iacob watching carefully day and night, both in colde and heate vppō his flocke,* 1.86 that must make good to his mai∣ster what so euer by thefte is imbeciled, or by wild beastes deuowred. The shepeherd M. Horne doth not onely feede his sheepe, and carefully choseth owte suche grownde and pastour, as is moste conueniente and holsome for them: but besides that, sondreth the whole and sownde, from the in∣fected and rottē: he greaceth and tarreth them, he byndeth, he cutteth them, he hath a staf with a hooke to draw thē in when they stray: he hath a staf to beat away the wolfe: he hath a folde to close and shutte them vp saufe from the incursiōs of the woulf, ād other rauening beasts. And what doth all this, but resemble and expresse vnto vs the pasto∣rall office of Bishops and prelates? Who owght to tell the people what is good and bad, what is trueth, what is fals∣hod, what is heresye, what is Catholyke fayth but these pastours? Where was then thys lesson of late, when laye men only by acte of parliamente toke vpon them to teache the whole clergye? Did not then lesse men, then kinges, Quenes, and Princes (who may not, you say nowe, clayme or take vpon them this kinde of spiritual gouernement and rule, to fede the Churche with Goddes worde) take vpon thē to fede all the realme with such doctrine as it pleased

the parliament to allowe, the parliament I say of lay men onely, not one Bishop amonge them, you being neither by the lawe of God (which no realme cā alter) neither yet by the lawe of the realme any Bishoppes at all: but onely the Quenes Commissioners, in matters of the Churche? And what can be more vnseamely and more vnnatural, thē thus the sheepe to feade the sheepherd, and not the shepheard to fede the shepe? O what times, o what māners are these?

To proceede, what higher Authoritye can there be in the world, thē by baptisme to make a Christian sowle? thē by pronuncing the solempe wordes appointed by Christe to cause to be presente the body and bloudde of Christe? And that same to minister to the deuoute and wel disposed people when so euer they call for yt? What rule and regi∣mente is comparable to the rule and regimente of the ec∣clesiastical shepherde, in the taking or excluding any out of his spiritual folde: that is, in binding and losing,* 1.87 in forge∣uing or retaininge of synnes, in making owte excommuni∣cation, or in the releasing of the same vppon dewe repen∣taunce▪ Herken, herken good M. Horne, what that noble prelate Chrysostomus writeth of this gouernment. Etenim qui terram incolunt. &c. There is (sayeth Chrisostomus) a power geuē to them that dwell and be cōuersante in the earth, to dispēse and dispose heauēly thinges, which power God would not geue neither to angelles nor archangelles.* 1.88 For yt was not spoken to them, what so euer ye binde in earthe shalbe bownde in heauē: and what so euer ye lose in earth shalbe losed in hea∣uen. The worldly Princes haue also an authority to binde: but only touching the body: but these bondes of the priestes bynde the sowle also, and do reache euen as farre as heauen. So that what so euer the priestes do beneth•• (in the worlde) the same

God doth ratifie aboue (in heauen) and the Lord doth confirme his seruants sentence. And he saith anon after. If the kinge doth honour any of his subiectes, so farre, that he geueth him au∣thoritie to imprison, or release out of prison whom he wil, this fellowe shalbe counted most fortunable, and a most happy man. But the priest, hath receiued from God a much greater power: and by so muche the greater, as heauen excelleth the earth, or the soule the bodie. And by and by. It is a madnes (saieth he) to despise this principalitie, without the whiche we can not be partakers of our saluation, or of such good thinges as are promi∣sed vs. For if no man can enter into the kingdome of heauen, vnlesse he be regenerated by water and the holy Ghoste:* 1.89 and he that doth not eate the fleashe of our Lorde and drinke his bloud is berefie of euerlasting lyfe:* 1.90 and all these thinges are not done, but by theyr holy handes, I saie by the handes of the Priestes: Howe maie it be, that without theyr helpe, a man maie either shunne hell fier, or obtaine the rewarde of the croune reserued in heauen? Againe he writeth, that the priest is the ambassa∣dour from al the worlde to desire God to be merciful, not only for the sinnes of the lyuing, but for the dead also. And anon after speaking of the sacrifice of the Masse, that you denie, and shewing what excellencie in vertue the Bishope or priest ought to haue aboue other: he saieth, that he must in althings excel other for whō he maketh this intercessiō to God, so far as it is mete that the ruler passe and ex∣ced the subiect. For (sayth he) whē the priest hath cal∣led for the holy Ghost, ād hath made the sacrifice, which we ought most to reuerence, and to tremble and feare at, handling continually our common Lord: I demaund among what states shal we place him? How great inte∣grity shal we loke for at his handes? How great holines

and deuotiō? Cōsider what those hādes ought to be, that shal mi∣nister such things? Cōsider what tong he ought to haue,* 1.91 that shal speak such words? Cōsider finally that his soule ought to be of all other most pure ād holy, that shal receiue so great, ād so worthy a spirit. At that time (he meaneth of the cōsecratiō of the bles¦sed sacrifice) the angels are present with the priest, and al the orders of the heauēly powers do make a shoute: the place that is nigh to the alter, is for the honor of him, that is sacrificed, reple∣nished with the companies of angels. Which a man may wel be∣leue, by reason of so great a sacrifice as is then made.

Thus muche haue I shewed you M. Horne owt of that most learned light of the Greeke. Church, Ioannes Chriso∣stomus, aswell to cause you to vnderstand your detestable heresie againste the priesthod of the newe testamente, as that the priestes haue a dignity, and a singular excellēt re∣gimente, aboue secular Princes. They haue their spirituall sword, that two edged sword I say, that cutteth both bodie and soule, and by excōmunication (if the party repent not) casteth both into the deape dongeon of hel. And shall all this be counted no rule nor regiment M. Horne, being in dede the cheif and the principal regimēt of al other? It is, yt is M. Horn the highest gouernmēt of al other, and of grea∣test charge, and importance. And muche better may yt be said to this euāgelical pastour, that was sayd to Agamēnon.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.92 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is not mete for him, all the night longe to slepe. that hath so muche people, and suche a charge to kepe.

Yea, ye are forced your self M. Horn to cōfesse yt a spi∣ritual gouernmēt and rule. Wherby of necessity followeth the ouerturning and ouerthrowīg of your lay supremacie.

For these being the chief matters or things Ecclesiasticall, as your selfe can not denie, and the Prince hauing nothing to doe with them, as you also confesse, it can not be pos∣sible, that the Prince should haue the Supremacy in al cau∣ses or things Ecclesiastical.* 1.93 And so neither M. Fekenham nor any man els may take this othe for feare of euident and open periurie. And of all madnes, this is a madnes, and a most open contradiction to remoue these things from the Prince, as ye do, and yet to attribute to him without anie exception the supremacy in al things or causes Ecclesiastical: Yea and to vrge men by other to confesse the same. Which kind of arguing is as wise as if a man woulde affirme, God to be the maker of al things, the geuer of all things, the pre∣seruer of al things, and yet by and by to saye: God can not geue the effect of grace to externall Sacramentes, God can not preserue his owne blessed Mother from al actual or o∣riginal sinne. Whereof will followe, that God in dede is not omnipotent or almightie: those things being taken a∣waie from him, wherein chieflie his almightie power con∣sisteth. For in such miraculous operations, surmounting farre al power of men, God most proprelie sheweth him∣selfe a God. As in such actes and causes Ecclesiastical (as binding and loosing, preaching the worde, ministring the Sacramēts, &c.) consisteth specially and most proprely the rule and gouernement Ecclesiastical. We nede not ther∣fore wrastle with you herein any farther, M. Horne, seing you can so preatily geue your selfe a notable fall.

Yet one thing would I faine knowe more of you, M. Horne, if I may be so bolde, and learne, what you meane nowe at the length to come in with the supreme Authority and power of the sworde. What meane you, I say, to define

vnto vs, the one kinde and sorte of gouerning the Churche of God, in these wordes: by the supreme Authoritie and power of the sword to guide, care, prouide, direct, and ayde Gods Church, &c? In all your booke hitherto, of such supreme Authori∣tie and power of the sworde, you neuer spake worde. Howe chaunceth it then, the sworde commeth in nowe? Doth the supreme gouernement of the Churche of God consiste in the power of the sworde? Then howe was the Church of God gouerned .300. yeres and more before the time of Constantine the Emperour, who was the very first (as hath bene shewed) that by the power of the sworde, I saie, by the power of the sworde, guided, cared, prouided, directed and aided Gods Churche? Did the Churche of Christ want a Supreme gouernour all those .300. yeres and more? Againe, doe the Lawes of the Church take force by the power of the sword? You with M. Nowell, and with the Acte of Parliament, do take away from the cler∣gie the power and Authoritie to make Churche Lawes, and Constitutions: and you say and swere to, that no Con∣uocation or Councel of Bishops, shal or may haue force or Authoritie to decree any Cōstitution Ecclesiastical, with∣out the Princes consent, licence, and supreame authoritie. For this purpose also you haue alleaged the practise of so many Coūcels both General and National, to make proufe that by the supreame Authoritie of Emperours and Kings, Canons and lawes of the Churche haue bene enacted and decreed, not by the Bishops and Councels it selfe. Wherin how shamefully you haue misreported the whole practise of the Churche, I haue sufficiently shewed in the seconde and third Bookes. But in all your so long processe you ne∣uer yet openlie said, that by the power of the sword suche

Canons and Lawes tooke place. And come you nowe to saye, that all this proceded of the power of the sworde? Where is then nowe become the libertie of the Ghospell, that your graundsir Luther, and all your protestant proge∣nitors of Germany do in al their writings so much extolle, maintaine, and defende against the Secular swoorde of Ciuill Magistrates? Againe you M. Horne, that doe force the Scholers of Oxforde to sweare by booke Othe, that Scripture onelye is sufficiente to conuince euerye trueth, and to destroye all heresies, you that will beleue nothing, but that as plaine Scripture auoucheth vnto you, tell vs, I praye you, where finde you in all Scripture, that the Supreame Authoritie to gouerne the Churche of God, is by the power of the swoorde? What? Did not the Apostles gouerne the Churche of Christe all the time of their abode here in earth? And when or where I pray you, vsed they the power of the Sword? Or because they vsed not that power, wer they not therfore the suprē Gouernours? Had they not a power and iurisdiction Ec∣clesiasticall?* 1.94 Saint Augustine affirmeth: Doctores Eccle∣siarum Apostoliomnia faciebant: & praecipiebant quae fierent, & corripiebant si non fierent, & orabant vt fierent. The teachers of the Churches, the Apostles did al things. They cōmaunded things to be done, they rebuked and vsed disci∣pline yf things were not done. And they prayed, that things might be done. This declareth that a gouernmēt and iurisdictiō thei vsed beside the bare preaching of the word. But this gouernement (saith M. Horne) was not by the po∣wer of the sword, which belōgeth only to Kings and Prin∣ces. Lerne now then M. Horne, that the Church of Christ hath a power aboue the sword, ād that as the Iewish Syna∣gogue

was ruled with the sworde, the transgressours of the lawe being punished by death, so the Churche of Christ is ruled by the Spiritual keies committed to the Apostles and their successours, and the transgressours of the Churche lawes are punished with the spiritual sworde of that iuris∣diction. S. Augustine saith:* 1.95 Phinees the Priest slew the ad∣ulterers with the sword: which truely was signified to be done in this time with degradations and excommunications, when as in the Church discipline, the visible sworde should cease. Lo, M. Horne. The visible sword is no part of the Church discipline nowe. It was among the Iewes a greate part of their discipline. Marke that it was no parte of the Chur∣che discipline. I doe not denie, as the Donatistes did, that because in the Apostles time, Princes vsed not the swoorde vppon Heretiques, and disobediente Christians therefore they should not now vse it. But I saie the Princes sworde is no parte of the Churche discipline. I say with S. Augustine, this visible sword in the Church discipline cea∣seth. If the Prince vse the sworde, it is no Ecclesiasticall gouernement, nor it is not the supreme gouernment. The Bishop hath a farre superiour gouernment,* 1.96 and a more ter∣rible sworde to strike withall. Of the whiche S. Augustine saith: Ipsa quae damnatio nominatur, quam fecit episcopale Iu∣dicium, qua poena in Ecclesia nulla maior est, potest. &c. That punishment which is called condemnation, which is made by the iudgement of the Bisshoppe, then the whyche punyshment there ys in the Churche no greater, may yet (yf yt please God) turne to a holesome correption. And agayne of the Churche discipline he sayeth, where by the Churche (not by anie Prince) the stubborne and disobedyent offender ys pronounced an Ethnicke and a

publicayne, Grauius est, quàn si gladio feriretur, si stammis absumeretur, si feris subrigeretur. This is a more greeuous punishment,* 1.97 then if he were stryken with the sword, then if he were spent vp in flames of fyere, then if he were rent with wilde beastes. You see then the Church hath a greater power to punishe withall, then the princes sworde. And to proue vnto you euidently, that the Princes sworde can be no part of Ecclesiastical or Spiritual gouernement, I will wishe you to marke but this one reason. The Chur∣ches power, iurisdiction, and gouernement, extendeth to the soule, ouerseeth, guideth, and ruleth the soule of man, not the bodie or any thing appertaining to the bodie. But the Princes swoorde can not reache to the soule of man. Ergo the Princes sworde can not be any fitte meane to gouerne as the Churche doothe, or to beare the Su∣preme gouernment in Church matters. The Maior or first Proposition is clere and confessed not onely of al Diuines, but of all Christian men that know what the Churche and the soule meaneth. The Minor is also cleare, if by no∣thing els,* 1.98 yet by this onelye place of the Ghospell where oure Sauiour saith: Feare not them that kill the bodie, & post haec non habent amplius quid faciant: and then haue no more to doe. As muche to saie: whose swoorde can not reache to the soule. Or as an other Euangelist writeth: Whiche can not kill the soule. And what is more repug∣naunt to reason,* 1.99 then to teache, that the Prince his sword whyche can not hurte the soule, shoulde be the supreame Gouernoure of the Churche, all whose power is ouer the soule? Whereof I reason thus. The Prince can not punnishe the soule of man: Ergo he hathe no iurisdi∣ction ouer it. Item he can not relieue it, or release it,

being in the boundes and distresse eyther of infidelitie, or of sinne: Ergo he can not be the supreame guider, and go∣uernour of it. Onely the Bisshoppes and Priests, doe pu∣nishe the soule by excommunication and binding of sinnes. Onely the Bisshoppes and Priestes (I saie Maister Horne, those that are proprelie called Priestes) can release, absolue,* 1.100 and make free the soule of man from the boundes and fet∣ters of infidelitie and sinne: Ergo they onelye haue the true and proper gouernmēt ouer the soul: If ouer the soule, Ergo in al Spiritual or Ecclesiastical causes which al tende to the soule helth and to the only gouernment of the same.

I graunt for preseruation of externall quiet, vnitie and peace in the Church, the Princes sword walketh and puni∣sheth the body of mē in the church. But this is no Church disciplin (in the which as S. Austine teacheth the visible sword ceaseth) this is no Churche gouernemente,* 1.101 described vnto vs in the Ghospell, and practised of the Churche Mini∣sters of all ages and times. But this is a Ciuill gouerne∣mente, aiding, not gouerning the Churche in times of ex∣treme frowardenesse and obstinacie of Heretiques and missebeleuers. This dothe (as all other worldlye things doe) serue the Churche of God, as the bodie serueth the soule, for execution of Churche lawes, for repressing of schismes and seditions, and for the maintenaunce also of dewe obedience in those men, whose frailtie or malice is suche, that they more feare the temporall swoorde, then the spirituall, and are moued more with externall damma∣ges, then with Ecclesiasticall censures, briefelie suche as feare more the torment of the bodie, then the losse of their soules.

And standeth it nowe with your truthe and honesty to

say, that the supreme gouernment of the Church, standeth in the power of the sworde? But why (as I sayed before) say you it now at the length, which before you neuer saied, but rather so extolled the princes supreme gouernement, that you made him an accurser of heretikes, a maker of Church lawes and constitutions,* 1.102 a principal confirmer of al Councelles, yea and a preacher of Gods wordes to? And neuer spake worde of the sword, but couertly concealed that pointe vntill nowe? Why M. Horne, but because the euidence of holy Scripture alleaged by M. Feckenham for∣ced you thereunto? The place I say of the Actes, where S. Paule confesseth, that the Bishopes and priestes (properly so called, M Horne, as S. Augustine telleth you) were ap∣poynted of the holy Ghost to feede and to rule the church, forced you to this plaine distinction, and to graunt nowe which you neuer graunted before, a certaine rule and go∣uernement to Bishoppes and priestes, which princes haue nothing to doe withall, plaine contradictorie to your for∣mer assertions, and to the Othe which you defende, attri∣butyng supreme gouernement to the Princes in all maner causes ecclesiastical or spiritual without exception. This also forced you to limit the Princes gouernemēt with the power of the sworde, which in Churche matters (as hath bene proued) is nowe no power at all (though among the Iewes it were) and which also, if it were a power, is not yet the supreme power, seing the Bishops and Priests haue a farre greater and higher power to exercise and to pra∣ctise vpon the soules of men, ouer which the Church pro∣perly, chiefly and only ruleth and gouerneth, not ouer the body, otherwise thē the necessary cōiunctiō of both impli∣eth the one with th'other. Gods name be blissed. The truth

hath forced you to open your owne falshood, and the ab∣surditie of your assertion,* 1.103 which you would so fayne haue concealed. The truthe also hathe driuē you to graunte that rule and gouernement nowe to Bishoppes and Priestes, which hitherto in your booke, and which also by the te∣nour of the Othe by you defended, is attributed to the Prince only, and cleane taken away from the Bishops and Priestes: Yea and to auouch, that Princes neyther may, nor doo clayme any such rule vpon thē, when yet by you and by the Othe, they bothe may and ought to claime no lesse then all together, without any exception or limitation in the worlde. Wherefore (as I sayed before) we nede to wrestle no farder with you, seing you can so roundly geue your selfe so notable a falle, and cast your selfe so properly in your owne turne. And to auoide tediousnes, I am dry∣uen here to breake of, desyrous otherwise to open diuerse your other and greate absurdities in thys Diuision. Nowe some of them I will note in your margin among your ma∣nyfolde vntruthes, and content my selfe at thys present, with that which hath bene sayed.

The .157. Diuision. pag. 97. a.

M. Fekenham.

And when your L. shalbe hable to prooue, that these woordes of the Apostle Paule, and by him writen in his Epistle vnto the Hebrewes: Obedite praepositis vestris,* 1.104 & subiacete eis: ipsi enim peruigilāt, quasi rationē pro anima∣bus vestris reddituri, vt cū gaudio hoc faciāt, et nō gemētes. Doe ye obey your spiritual gouernours, and submit your selues vnto them, for they watche, as men which must geue accompt for your soules: that they may doe it with ioye & not with griefe.

VVhan your L. shalbe hable to proue, that these wordes were not writen of the Apostle Paule, aswel for al Chri∣stian Emperours, Kings and Queenes, as for the inferiour sort of people, thā shal I in like maner yelde touching that text of Paule, and thinke my selfe very wel satisfied.

M. Horne.

No man hath or doth denie, that the Church ministers hath to gouerne the flocke by preaching, and feeding vvith the vvorde, vvhich is the rule or gouernement, that Paule speaketh of in this place also: vvhereto all princes are and ought to be subiecte and obedient. For this subiection and obedience, to the vvorde of the Ghospel, taught, and preached by the Bishoppes, sitting in Christes chaire, vvhich is the vvhole (.536.)* 1.105 rule and gouernement they haue or ought to claime, as propre to theyr calling, is commaunded so vvell to princes, as to the inferiour sorte of the people, as you say truely, although your cause is no deale holpen, nor my assertion any (.537.)* 1.106 vvhit proued thereby.

The .2. Chapter, of M. Fekenhams second reason, for not taking the Othe: grounded vpon S. Paule Heb. 13.

Stapleton.

THE seconde authority that M. Fekenham bringeth is out of S. Paule Obey your (spiritual) gouernours,* 1.107 and submitte your selues vnto them, for they watche as men, that muste geue an accompt for your soules. In which wordes th'Apostle, as he teacheth the shepe to obey, so he techeth the pastours vigilare & clauum ac gubernacula tenere, saieth Theodoretus,* 1.108 to watch and to rule the sterne. For answere to this, M. Horne is yet ones againe reuolted to his feding, and woulde fayne feade vs forth with a folishe flie flawe, as thowghe this were meante no further, then that spiri∣tuall men may feade the people and Prince to, with the

worde of God: wherunto all aswell the Princes as people are bownde to obey. And this, he saieth, is the whole rule and gouernmente that they can properly clayme. Nay May∣ster Horne, not so, let them haue some more gouerne∣mente, and at the leaste, so muche as your self graunted them euen in the laste leafe before: that is, to minister Sa∣cramentes, and to bynde and lose. Will ye so sone abridge your late liberalitie? What yf the people Mayster Horne, or the Prince either will set light by the preachers worde, and will amende neuer a deale the more, for all his prea∣ching, but wexeth worse and worse, especially in opē and notoriouse faultes? Is there no further remedy, but to suffer al thinges to runne on?* 1.109 Ys the Bishop thinke you now ex∣cused? Why had then Ely such a greauouse punishment for his vnruly children? He tolde them theire faultes, he tolde them that all the people spake yll of them. But yet both he and his had a terrible punishmente, quòd non corripuerit eos. Because he did not rebuke thē: yet did he rebuke thē.* 1.110 But for that he did not rebuke them so vehemently and so ear∣nestly as he shoulde haue done: and as S. Hierome sayeth, coercuit & corripuit eos, sed lenitate seu mansuetudiue pater∣nali, nō seueritate & authoritate Pontificali. He did correcte and rebuke thē, but mekely and gently as fathers are wōte, not seuerely, nor with such autority as he being the bishop should haue done. Then yf gentle or sharpe words wil not serue, the euāgelical pastour must take the staf in his hand, and breake the obstinat and stubborne hart with a terrible blowe of excōmunication, he must sequester this scabbed shepe frō the residue of the flock. For as S. Augustin saieth,* 1.111 An nō {per}tinet ad diligentiā pastoralē, ēt illas oues quae etc. à grege aberrauerint, si resistere voluerint, flagellorū terrorib. vel etiā doloribus reuocare?

Dothe it not appertaine to the pastoral diligence, to call backe such sheepe, as doe goe astraie, and if they resist, to call them backe with terroure of the rodde, yea and with stripes too?* 1.112 And this is the rodde S. Paule speaketh of, and threateneth the Corinthians withall. This is the rod with the which he beat the fornicatour there. This rodde ma∣ny bishops vsed against Princes and Emperours. This rodde Marcians Father being a Bishoppe,* 1.113 vsed against his owne sonne for deflouring a Virgin. To this spirituall Authoritie the offēder, what so euer he be, prince or other, is subiect: and therfore this proueth euidently the Ecclesiasticall Su∣premacy to rest in the Clergy, ād not in the Prince, which must obey as well as the other. And therefore it is not true that ye saye, that M. Fekenhams cause is no deale holpen by this place, nor your assertion any thing improued.

But let vs steppe one steppe farder with you M. Horne, vpō the groūd of your present liberalytye, lest as you haue begonne, you pinche vs yet farder, and take away all toge∣ther from Bishops and Priestes. Subiection, you say, and obe∣dience to the word of God taught and preached by the Bishops &c. is commaūded so wel to Princes, as to the inferiour sort of the people. If so M. Horne, howe did a lay parliament vtter∣ly disobey the doctrine of all their Bishoppes, and enacte a new contrary to theirs? What obediēce was there in that parliament, so expressely required here by S. Paule, and so dewe euen of Princes them selues, as you confesse, to their Bishoppes? Will you say the Bishoppes then preached not Gods worde? And who shal iudge that? Shal a lay parlia∣ment iudge it? Is that the obedience dewe to Bishoppes? In case al the Bishops of a realme erred, is there not a generall Councell to be sought vnto? Are there not other Bishops

of other Coūtries to be coūseled? Is not al the Church one body? In matters of faithe shal we seuer our selues frō our Fathers ād Brethern (the whole corps of Christēdome be∣side) by the vertue of an Acte passed by lay mē onely? No bishops, no Clerke admitted to speake, and say his minde? O lamentable case. God forgeue our dere Countre this most haynouse trespasse. Then the which I feare our Re∣alme committed not a more greuous (except the first breache in Kinge Henries dayes) these many hundred yeares.

Yet one steppe farder. The Prince must obey and be fedde at the Bishoppes hande: you confesse. What is that? Is it not, he must learne howe to beleue, and howe to serue God? Is it not the pastorall office, as S Augustin teacheth,* 1.114 to open the springes that are hidden, and to geue pure and sounde water to the thirsty shepe? Is not the shepeheardes office, to strenghthen that is weake, to heale that is sicke, to binde that is broken, to bringe home againe that is caste away to seke that is loste, and so forthe, as the Prophet Eze∣chiel, describeth? And what is all this, but to teache, to cor∣rect, to instructe, to refourme and amende all such thinges as are amisse, either in faithe or in good life? If so, then in case the realme went a stray, shoulde not they redresse vs, which were pastours and shepheards in Christes Church? If our owne shepheards did amisse, was there in all Chri∣stendom no true Bishoppes beside, no faithfull pastour,* 1.115 no right shepeheard? Verely S. Augustine teacheth at large, that it is not possible, that the shepheards shoulde misse of the true doctrine. What soeuer their life or maners be. But put the case so, that we may come to an issewe. Must then the Prince fede vs, alter our Religion, sett vp a newe,

stop the shepheards mouthes, plaie the shepheard him self. Is this, M. Horne, the obedience that you teach Princes to shew to their shepheards? God forgeue them that herein haue offended, and God (in whose hands the harts of Prin∣ces are) inspire with his blessed grace the noble hart of our most gracious Souerain the Quenes Maiesty, that her high∣nes may see and consider this horrible and deadly inconue∣nience to the which your most wicked and blasphemouse doctrine hath induced her grace. You are the woulfe, M. Horne. And therfore no marueile if you procure to tie the shepheard fast, and to mousell the dogges.

The .158. Diuision. Pag. 97. b.

M. Fekenham.

* 1.116And when your L. shall be able to proue, that these wordes of Paule: Mulieres in Ecclesijs taceant, &c. Let the wemen kepe silence in the Churche: for it is not permitted vnto them there to speake: but let them liue vnder obedience, like as the Law of God appointeth thē, and if they be desirous to learne any thing, let them aske their husbands at home, for it is a shameful and rebukeful thing, for a woman to speake in the Church of Christ. When your L. shalbe able to proue, that these wordes of Paule, were not as wel spoken of Quenes, Duchesses, and of noble Women, as of the meane and in∣feriour sorte of Women: like as these wordes of almigh∣tie God, spoken in the plague and punishment first vnto our mother Eue for her offence: and secondarily by her vnto al women without exception. vidz. Multiplicabo ae∣rumnas,* 1.117 &c. I shal encrease thy dolours, sorowes and concei∣uings, and in paine and trauaile, thou shalt bring forth thy chil∣dren,

& thou shalt liue vnder the authority & power of thy hus∣bād and he shal haue the gouernment and dominion ouer thee. Whan your L. shall be able to proue, anye exception to be made eyther in these woordes spoken in the olde lawe, by the mouth of God: eyther in the wordes before spoken of the Apostle Paule in the newe: than I shall in like mā∣ner yeelde, and with most humble thankes, thinke my selfe very well satisfied in conscience, not onely touching all the afore alleaged testimonies, but also in this seconde chiefe pointe.

M. Horne.

I doe graunte the vvoordes of the holie Scriptures in bothe these places to be spoken to al states of vvomen vvithout exception. But vvhat make they for your purpose, hovve doe they conclude and confirme your cause? VVomen muste be silent in the Churche, and are not permitted to speake: That is, as your ovvne Doctour Nicolaus de Lyra expoundeth it, wo∣men muste not teache and preache the doctrine in the Churche, neyther dispute openlye: Therefore our Sauiour Christe dyd not committe to Kinges, Queenes, and Princes, the Authoritie to haue and take vppon them (.538.)* 1.118 anye parte of gouernement in Ecclesiasticall causes. As (.539.)* 1.119 though a younge Nouice of your Munkishe ordre shoulde haue argued: Nunnes muste keepe silence, and maye not speake in the Cloysture, nor yet at Dynner, tyme in the fray∣trie: therefore your deceyuer the Pope dyd not committe Au∣thoritie to his Prouincialles, Abbottes, Priores, and Prioresses, to haue and take vppon them the gouernement vnder hym selfe in Munkishe and Nunnishe causes and matters? VVhat man vvoulde haue thought Maister Feckēham to haue had so (.540.)* 1.120 little consideration, although vnlearned, as to vouche the si∣lence of vvomen in the Churche, for a reason to improue the Authoritie of Princes in Churche causes?

The .3. Chapter. Of M. Fekenhams third reason taken out of S. Paule also .1. Cor. 14.

Stapleton.

* 1.121MAister Feckenham his thirde reason is, that women are not permitted to speake in the Church, and there∣fore they can not be the heads of the Church. To this M. Horn answereth: first that this place of S. Paul must be vnderstanded of teaching, preaching, and disputing: and that therfore it wil not follow thereof, that they may not take vpō thē any gouernment in Ecclesiastical causes. And then being merily disposed, he saith this Argumēt is much like, as if a yong Nouice shuld reason thus. Nūnes must kepe silēce in the Cloisture: therfore the Prioresses haue not the gouernment in Nūnish causes and matters. Cōcerning the first part of his answere, I say that the argument is good ād sufficiēt. For if teaching, preaching, and disputing in matters of religiō, be causes and matters ecclesiastical: and if womē be imbarred frō this, then is there a sufficiēt cause, why M. Fekenham may not take this othe, that a woman is supreme head in al causes spiritual ād ecclesiastical: Namely to erect and enact a new and proper religiō throughout her realme by the vertue of her own proper and supreme gouernmēt. For to this end, M. Horn, is the othe tēd••ed. It is to euidēt. It can not be dissembled. Againe, the said place of S. Paul is of the order and māner of expoūding of scripture, as it ap∣peareth by the text. If then S. Paul forbiddeth a woman to expoūd scripture: how can a woman take vpon her, to be the chief iudge of al those that expoūd the scripture? I mean in that very office of expoūding Scripture, in decreeīg, de∣termining, and enacting, what religion, what beliefe, what doctrine shal take place. And such shee must nedes be, if she

be a supreme head. Suche do you and your fellowes make her. Such authority you M. Horn, throughout all this boke, attribute to your new supreme heads, Emperours and Kīgs by you alleaged. You make them to preache, to teache, and to prescribe to the Bishops in their Coūcels, what and how they shal do in their ecclesiasticall matters. If then by you a supreme Gouerner in ecclesiastical maters, must be so qua∣lified, as to be present in Councels of Bishops, to prescribe rules for the Bishops to follow, to determine what they shal do, and to cōfirme by royal assēt the decrees of bishops, yea and to make them selues, decrees and cōstitutions ecclesia∣stical, but a woman by S. Paule, may not ones speake in the Church, that is, in the Cōgregatiō or assembly of the faith∣ful, and by you a womā may not preache, teach, or dispute: vndoubtedly both by S. Paul, and by your own cōfession, a womā can not be a supreme Gouernour, such as the Othe forceth mē to swere. I say, supreme gouernour in al eccle∣siastical causes. No nor in so many causes by a great deale, as you pretend in this your booke, other Kings and Princes to haue practised supreme gouernmēt in. Cōsider now, M. Horne, how it may stād with S. Paules doctrine, that a wo∣man may be a supreme gouerner in al ecclesiastical causes: namely such as you in this boke, would make your Reader beleue, that al Emperours, Kings and Princes hitherto haue bene. Now put the case (as we saw it viij. yeres past) that in a doubtful matter of doctrine and religion to be tried by scripture, the whole number of bishops agree vpō some de∣terminate and resolute exposition with their Clergie, and would by an Ecclesiastical law of Cōuocation or Councel set forth the same? Al their resolutiō and determination is not worth a rush by your Othe and by your maner of talke

in this booke, if the Prince doe not allowe and cōfirme the same. And how this wil stād with S. Paul in this chapter, tel vs I pray you: presupposing (as the statute requireth) that the Princes allowing though she be a woman, is necessary. And now are ye come to th••s point, and driuē therto by the force of this place, to say: that the place doth not proue, but a womā may haue some gouernmēt in ecclesiastical causes: As though the Questiō were now of some gouernmēt on∣ly, and not of Supreme and absolute Gouernment in al ma∣ner thinges and causes ecclesiastical. If therefore this place do proue, that a womā hath not the Supreme and absolute gouernement in all causes ecclesiasticall, but that in some, and them the chiefest, she must holde her peace, as yt doth euidētly, and ye can not denie yt: then is M. Fekenham free frō taking the othe of the supremacy, and then hath S. Paule vtterly confuted that Othe, and your whole booke withal.

This I say also, as by the way, that yf this chapter must be taken, for teaching, preaching and disputing, as M. Horne saith and truely, that M. Iewell went far wide frō S. Paules meaning, when he applied yt to the cōmon seruice of the Church, whereof it is no more meāt, thē of the cōmō talke in tauernes. As for M. Hornes secōd mery mad obiectiō, no mā is so mad to make such an argumēt but hīself. And ther∣fore he may as long, and as iolily as he wil, triūph with him self in his own folly. Yet I would wish M. Horne to speake wel of Nunnes, were it but for his grandsir Luthers sake, and the heauēly coniunctiō of him and a Nonne together: Which vnhappy cōiunction of that Vulcā and Venus, en∣gēdred the vnhappy brood of M. Horn ād his felowes. But that this folish fond argumēt is nothing like to M. Fekenhās argumente, yt may easely be proceiued, by that we haue alredy and sufficiently sayde.

M. Fekenham. The .159. Diuision. pag. 98. a.

The third chiefe point is, that I must not only sweare vpon the Euangelists, that no foraine personne, state or potentate, hath or ought to haue any power or authoritie Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realme: but also by vertue of the same Othe, I must renounce all forraine power and authorities, which for a Christian man to doe, is directly against these two Articles of our Crede: Credo sanctā ecclesiā Catholicā: I do beleue the holy catholik ••hurch. Credo Sanctorū cōmunionē: I do beleue the cōmuniō of saints. And that there is a participatiō and cōmunion amongest al the beleuers of Christes Church, which of the Apostle Paule are called Saincts. Adiuro vos per Dominū vt lega∣tur haec Epistola omnibus sanctis fratribus. And herin I do ioyne this issue with your L. that whā your L. shalbe able to proue by Scripture, Doctor, General Coūcell, or by the cōtinual practise of any one Church, or part of al Christē∣dome, that by the first Article, I beleue the holy Catholik Church, is meant only that there is a Catholike Church of Christ, and not so that by the same article euery Christiā man is bound to be subiect and obedient to the Catholike Church, like as euery member ought to haue obediēce vn∣to the whole mystical bodie of Christ. And further when you shall be hable to proue by the second Article: I dooe beleue the Communion of Saints, is not so meante, that a Christian man oughte to beleeue such attonement, suche

a participation and communion, to be amongest al belee∣uers and members of Christes Catholike Churche in do∣ctrine, in faith, in Religion, and Sacramentes, but that it is laufull for vs of this Realme therein to dissent from the Catholike Churche of Christe dispersed in all other Realmes: and that by a corporal Othe it is laufull for vs to renounce, and refuse to haue communion with the Ca∣tholike Church so dispersed, bycause it is a forrayne au∣thoritie and power out of this Realme: when soeuer your L. shalbe hable to proue this by Scripture, Doctour, Ge∣nerall Councell: or yet by continuall practise of any one Church, or parte of al Christendome: Than shal I in lyke manner, yelde in this third point, and with most humble thankes, shal thinke my selfe very well satisfied therein.

M. Horne.

This thirde chiefe pointe is (.541.)* 1.122 nothing els, but a misshapened lumpe of vvordes: conteining firste an argument grounded vppon a kinde of Opposition, that no vvise or learned man euer redde of, but is nevvelie forged and hammered out of your ovvne braine: Then, an issue, to haue me prooue that thinge, vvhiche beinge rightly vnderstanded, no Christian doth doubte of, or vvill denie. And laste of all, an huge heape of flatte and manifeste (.542.)* 1.123 Lyes againste the vvhole Realme, to set a good face vppon an euill fauoured cause, vvhich can finde no helpe or ease by plaine and simple truthe. The vveightie burden, that you are loden vvith and can not beare, is that you must by Othe renounce all foreine povver and authoritie: the cause that maketh you fainte and feeble, is, that it is directly againste tvvo Artiles of our Creede: So that your feeble reason is grounded after your simple skill vppon the place, ab oppositis & pug∣nantibus. Before I aunsvvere to the argument, I vvill put the Reader

in remembraunce of the diuision vvhiche you make, chopping and chaun∣ginge one (.543.)* 1.124 Article in tvvaine, to make some shevve of an heinous matter. Surely it vvere ouermuche detestable, if you vvere moued to svveare but against one article of our Creede, as yee vvere neuer moued by me, either to or fro, to svveare anie thinge at all. There be three symboles or Creedes, vvhiche haue bene allovved and receaued of Christes Catholique Churche. The symbole of the Apostles, of the Nicen Coun∣cell, and of Athanasius. The Apostolicall is so called, bycause it vvas collected (as some saye) by the tvvelue Apostles, and therefore conteineth (as the commonly receiued opinion is in Christes Churche) according to the number of the tvvelue Apostles, but tvvelue Articles, vvhiche are called in the vsuall speache of the Catholique Christians, the tvvelue Articles of our Creede or beliefe. If this, I beleue the communion of sain∣ctes, be a seuerall Article from this, I beleue the holy Catholique Churche, as you doe phantasie, then there muste needes be at the leaste thirtene Articles of the Creede, contrarie to the (.544.)* 1.125 vniuersally re∣ceiued opinion of the Catholique Churche. You vvere vvonte to staye your selfe muche vpon the custome of the Catholike Churche, and vvoulde vrge stiflie although not so trulie the vniuersallie receiued opinion of the Catho∣lique Churche, as a matter that might not bee reiected, or denied: and hovve chaunceth it novve, that you are become suche a chaungeling, that cleane (.545.)* 1.126 contrarie to the vse of the Catholike Church, vvhiche ac∣knovvledged but tvvelue, you vvil make thirtene Articles of the Creede at the leaste? Besides th••s, the Catholike Church in the tyme of Cyprian and Augustine, and before also, dyd not reken or iudge these to be tvvo se∣uerall Articles, but did coumpte them one article, concluding these vvor∣des, the communion of Sainctes, in this sentence, I beleue a Catho∣lique Churche of Christe, recyting the Symbole vvithout rehearsall or mentioning, the communion of Sainctes, as it is plainely sette foorth by S. Cyprian and Augustine, in theyr expositions of the Apostolicall Creede. The matter meant by the communion of Sainctes, is vt∣tered in these vvordes: I beleue the holy Catholike Churche of Christe. VVherevnto hath bene added sence these auncient Fathers t••mes, as it maie seme by the vvaie of explication, communion of Sain∣ctes, to expresse in plainesse of speche, that Christes Catholique Churche,

is nothing els, but a felovvship, and cōmunion of faithful ones, vvhich are sain∣ctes. Novv let vs see hovv to svveare, as this third chiefe point of the Othe set∣teth forth, is directly against this article of our Creede, I beleue the holy Catholike Church, the communion of Sainctes. All true subiectes ought and must renounce and forsake all foraine iurisdictions, povvers, su∣perioririe, preheminēces, and authorities of euery foraine Prince, and prelate, state, or potentat. This is the propositiō of that part of the Othe: to the vvhich adioyne this proposition, all true subiectes ought and must beleue, an holy Catholike church of Christ, the cōmunion of sainctes. Espy novv vvhat opposition is betvvixt these tvvo propositions, that they may not both matche together, and be verified in one true and faithful subiect. The one, say you, is directly against the other. Then say I, there is a direct oppositiō and re∣pugnancy betvvixt them, by due examination vve shal find out the oppositiō. Trie the partes of these propositiōs seuerally vvithout the verbe that coupleth them together, and you shal not find any opposion, either cōtrary relatiue, priuatiue, or disparat: ioyne them together vvith the verbe that coupleth, ād being propositions, they are not one against the other cōtrary, subcōtra¦ry, subalterne, nor (546.)* 1.127 cōtradictory, ād therfore vntruly, ād not lesse vnskilfully babled of you, that the one is directly against the other, vvhen a yong scholer that hath red but the rudimēts of his Logik, could haue sene and iudged, that ther is in thē no oppositiō or repugnancy at al. To renoūce ād forsake (.547.)* 1.128 Antichrist and his church by othe or knovvlege and to beleue in Christ and rightfully by al maner of vvaies, standeth neither directly nor in directly one against the other, but are matched together and agreeth iūpe one vvith the other. Surely your eyes vver not matches, neither vvere your vvittes at home, vvhē you spied out this repugnancy, if you had not published this learned peece of vvorke, your friendes should neuer haue knovven, vvhat an huge heape of cōning and knouledge,* 1.129 is hiddē in that litle head of yours. The demaūd in your issue is easely proued by the descriptiō or definitiō of Christes true Catholike church. The catholike Church of Christ, is a multitud, society, and cōmuniō of sainctes and faithful ones, that haue ben, shalbe, and are novv one liue in the earth, hovve and vvhersoeuer they be diuided and dispersed in time and place, the vvhich multitude of saintes, haue a participatiō in cōmuniō amōgst thēselues of al good things, geuē, graūted, and grovvīg frō god through Christ, of spirit, faith, sacramēts, praier, remissiō of syns, and heauēly blisse, and

are vnited to Christ their head by faith, and fastened together amōgst thēsel∣ues, as mēbers of one body vvith the bōd of loue. To this catholike Churche, euery Christian man is bounde to bee subiect and obedient as a member ought, and may be subiect and obedient to the body.

And vve doo teache and cōfesse in this Church such an attonemēt, partici∣patiō, and cōmunion, among all the members in doctrine, faith, Religiō, and Sacramēts, that neither this, nor any other Realme, may laufully dissent frō this Church, or renoūce and refuse to haue cōmunion therevvith, as God be praised vve of this realme do novve shevve our selues by al Christiā meanes, neuer more at any time, to (.548.)* 1.130 agree and cōsent in the vnity of this Ca∣tholike Church, in necessary doctrine, right faith, true Religiō, and the right vse of Christes Sacramentes. The foule (.549.)* 1.131 lies that you heape together, vvherevvith shamefully to defoyle your ovvne neast and natiue coūtry, neadeth none other cōfutatiō, thā only to make thē plaine to be seen and iudged of al mē, that the Realme may be so∣ry, that euer it nestled so vnnatural and filthy a byrde, and your friendes ashamed of so malicious and impudent a Liar. This is a levvde (.550.)* 1.132 Lie, that this Realme dissenteth frō the Catholike Church in the forenamed poīts. This is a (.551.)* 1.133 shameful Lie, that by corporall othe or any other vvaies, vve renounce and refuse to haue cōmunion vvith the Catholike Church of Christe. And this is a monsterous (.552.)* 1.134 Lye that the catholike Church is a foraine authority ād povver out of this Realm. VVho vvas euer so madde, as ones to thinke, or so doltish as to speake any thing againste the Catholike Church, but specially to forsake it, and that bicause it is a foraine povver and authority. The Othe maketh no mention in any one vvorde, of the Catholique Church, it speaketh of (.553.)* 1.135 a foraigne Prince, Prelate, and Potētate, and so of the foraigne Po∣vver and authority of suche a foraigne state. VVherevpon M. Fe∣kenhā cōcludeth as it vvere by Reuelatiō, in a Mōkishe dreame, vvithout rime or reason, that therfore the catholike Church is for∣sakē, as though there vvere no differēce betvvixt a foraine Prince, or prelate and the Catholique Churche: or that the Catholique Church might be called a foreine Povver, or a forine authority to a Christiā Realm. This is such a nevv kind of Diuinity is vvas neuer heard or redde of in any vvriter, no not in the Legēd of Goldē Lies.

The .4. Chapter, defending M. Feckenhams thirde chiefe poynt, and prouing euidently, that the Othe destroyeth two Ar∣ticles of our Crede. And by occasion, of the prote∣stantes dissension in these lowe Countres he••e.

Stapleton.

* 1.136THE effect of M. Fekenhams third poynt, resteth in this, that he cānot vouchsafe to take the othe, for that it is against two articles of the faith: I belieue the holy cathol••ke Church and: I belieue the cōmuniō of Saints. For the which argumēt M. Horn setteth vpō him with great force both of diuinity and logike. He maruaileth, that M. Fekēhā cōtrary to th'opiniō vniuersally receiued of al the catholik Church maketh of xij. xiij. articles of the crede: making the cōmunion of saints an article of the faith, which was none in the time of S. Cypriā and S. Augustine. Then like a lustie logicioner he auoucheth, that there is no way any cōtra∣dictiō to the catholike faith, in taking an othe, for the re∣nouncing of al foraine power. Last of al he setteth forth a definitiō of the catholike church. Suerly M. Fekenham had nede beware now least M. Horne proue him an heretike, for he can not be farre frō heresy, that mainteineth an opi∣niō cōtrary to the vniuersal church. But because ye charge him so hardly M. Horne, we muste see wel to the matter, and we muste cōsider somwhat exactly, whether there be no more articles then xij. to be belieued. And here though ye beare the countenance of a great Bishop, I must be so bold to bring you to your cathechisme, and to seuer euery thing into his owne proper kinde. The first article then is, I belieue in God. The .2. I belieue in God the Father, The .3. that he is omnipotente: The .4. that he is the creatour of heauē and

earth: The .5. I belieue in Iesus Christ: The .6 I belieue he was cōceiued of the holy ghost The .7. That he was borne of the vir∣gin Marie: The .8. That he suff••ed vnder Pontius Pilatus: and the .9 that he descēded into hell. The .10. that he rose f••ō death the .3. day. The .11 that he ascēded into heauen: and the .12. that he shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead: Here haue ye alredie twelue articles: the denial of any one of thē being opē heresie. And thē immediatly haue we yet certaine ar∣ticles more. As: I belieue in the holy ghost, I belieue the catho∣like church, the cōmuniō of saints, the forgiuenes of sinnes, the resurrectiō of the fleshe, and the life euerlasting. Denie me,* 1.137 yf ye dare M. Horne any one of these to be an article of our faith cōteined by expresse words in the cōmon crede. I say nothīg here of many other articles that ye are aswel bound to belieue as these. As that Christe is consubstantial to the Father, that he hath two natures, and two willes, and that the holy Ghost procedeth from the Father and the sonne, with such like. The opiniō of many learned mē in the chur∣che is, M. Horne, that there be fowrtene articles of the faith, wherin aswel the diuines as the canonistes do cōmō∣ly agree. And to omitte other coūtries, the bishops of En∣glād in their sinodes haue determined ād takē order by di∣uerse cōstitutions prouincial, that aswel the articles of the faith accordīg to this nūber, as the .10. cōmaūdemēts should be quarterly expounded, and declared to the people by theire curates in the vulgar tong. Truth yt is, that they are commonly called the .12. articles of the faith, not because they are precisely but xij. But because yt is thowght that the Apostles before they were dispersed abrode in the worlde to preache, made eche one a parcel of the cōmon crede. And for that cause, they are vsually called the .12. ar∣ticles.

Or for that they be reducible to .12. principal articles, to the which some do reduce thē, or to .14. as they are vsu∣ally reduced in the Schooles. In this sort the Article of the cōmunion of Saints, may be cōprehended in the Article of the holy Catholike Church. Vnder the whiche, as ye say, S. Cypriā and S. Austine do cōprehend it. Yet in this point ye are deceiued, that ye suppose the expositiō of the Crede to be made by S. Cyprian. For it is not his expositiō, but Ruffi∣nus or some others: as the thing it self sheweth most euidēt∣lie. Touching the .2. point, we feare nothing your Logike, nor your high cūning: wherby ye tel vs of an oppositiō con∣trary, relatiue, priuatiue, and disparatiue: and of Propositions cōtrary,* 1.138 subcōtrary, subalterne, and cōtradictory. Lesse Logike might haue serued, M. Horne: for ye do not soile M. Fekē∣hams, but your own Argument. And then is it an easy mat∣ter for a man, framing an argument of his own, to frame al∣so what solution it pleaseth him. But let vs take M. Fe∣kenhams true argument, and we shal find a plaine contradi∣ctory (which is the extremest of al oppositiōs) betwen the tenour of the Othe, and betwen this Article of our Crede, that M Fekenham here toucheth. This is (you say your self here M. Horne) the propositiō of that part of the othe. Al true subiects ought and must forsake al foraine iurisdictiōs, powers, superioritie, praeeminences and authorities of euery foraine Prince, and Prelate, state or Potentate. The propositiō of M. Fekenhā,* 1.139 is, that to beleue the holy Catholik Church, is as much to say, as to be subiect and obediēt to the Catholik Church. But the Catholik Church cōprehēdeth al the corps of Christē∣dom, as wel without the realme as within the realme, sub∣iect and obediēt to one head the Pope of Rome. And this Pope of Rome is to you a foraine Prelate, Power and Po∣tentate,

as your self doth afterward expoūd it: Ergo by ver∣tue of the oth, you force al the Quenes subiects to renoūce and forsake al the corps of Christēdom without the realm: which is, as I haue said, the extreme cōtradictory to this, Al true subiects ought and must beleue, obey, and be subiect to the whole corps of Christendom, as well without the Re∣alme as within.

You answer. The Othe maketh no mētion in any one word of the Catholike Church. But I replie: In that you exclude al foraine power and authoritie, you exclude also the Catho∣lik Church, which is no lesse forain to you, thē is the Pope, to whom that Church is subiect, as the body to the head.

You saye, the Othe speaketh of a foraine Prince, Prelate, and Potentate, and so of the foraine power and authority of such a foraine state, but I replie: First that you belye the Othe. For the Othe speaketh, not, of a forraine Prince, Prelate and Potentate, but of euery foraine Prince, Prelate and poten∣tate, as but the second leafe before, your selfe describeth this part of the Othe. And so expresly you renounce, as al Princes so all Prelates of Christes Churche, whiche is the whole Catholike Church. And so the Othe is plaine con∣tradictory to this Article: I beleue the Catholique Churche.

Secondarily, I replie, that the foraine authoritie of such a foraine state is (in your sense) the whole Churches au∣thoritie subiect to the Pope of Rome. And so ones again, by the report of your Oth in renoūcing al forain autority, you renoūce al the Churches authority without the realme of Englād: as much to say, you renoūce to beleue ād obey the Catholik church. And as much to say, you protest by oth, to beleue and obey, only the church within the realm of Eng∣land. Cōsider now, good Reader, whether this third part of

the oth, be not mere cōtradictory in effect, to this article of our Crede, I beleue the Catholike Church: supposing that we must not onely beleue, but also obey and be subiect to the Catholike Church. Which is the Argumēt that M. Feken∣ham proposeth, and is the demaund in M. Fekenhams issue. To the which M Horne answereth neuer a whit. But fra∣meth a nother opposition such as in deede might well be∣come a dremer in his dreme. Againe, betwen this Article of our Crede:* 1.140 I beleue the Cōmuniō of Saints (ād your othe) I renoūce al foraine iurisdictiōs, power, superiority, praeeminēce, of euery foraine Prince and Prelate: is a plaine and extreme cōtradiction. For as to renoūce euery forain Prince, bīdeth al the subiects of Englād, to obey ōly the prince of that lād, and no prince out of the lād, in al tēporal causes ād things: which part of the Othe no Papist in England euer refused to take (and which for my part, M. Barlow of Chichester can beare me witnesse, I refused not, but expreslie offered my self to take, at what time vpō refusal of the other part, he depriued me (as much as laie in him) of my prebend in that church) so to renoūce euery forain Prelate (as the othe expresly speaketh) bindeth al the subiects of England to o∣bey only the Prelates of that lād, and not to obey any Pre∣late without the land what soeuer he be, in any spiritual or Ecclesiasticall cause. Which is as euery man may see, the extreme cōtradictory to this Article of our Crede. I beleue the Cōmunion of Saints. Wherby is ment, as M Fekenhā rea∣soneth (and M. Horne denieth not, nor can with any shame deny) that euery Christian man ought to beleue a perfecte attonement, participation, and cōmunion to be emongst al beleuers and members of Christes Catholike Churche in doctrine, in faith, in religion, and sacraments.

He confesseth also, that it is not lauful for vs of the realm of England therin to dissent, from the Catholik Church of Christ dispersed in al other Realms. This is a most true and inuincible opposition betwene the Othe and the article or parte of our Crede: most truly and learnedly set forth by M. Feck. lewdly dissembled ād no whit answered by M. Horn.* 1.141

Now though you and your felowes M. Horne, wil seme to expound by the authority of euery foraine Prelate, the au∣thority of the Pope only, yet who seeth not, what an heape of absurdities doo folow therof?

For first, is the Pope euery forain Prelate? or yf he be not, [ 1] why sweare you against euery forain Prelate?

Secondly is euery forain Prelate, the Pope? then haue we [ 2] I trowe more Popes then one.

Thirdly, why should yow rather meane by a forain Pre∣late [ 3] the B. of Rome in Italy, then the B. of Millayn in Lom∣bardy, the B. of Toledo in Spain, the B. of Lisbona in Por∣tugal, the B. of Parys in Fraunce, the B. of Ments in Germa∣ny, or any other bishope in these lowe Countries here, in Sicily, in Polonia, in Prussia, or any other where, without the Realm of Englād? Or what is ther in the B. of Rome, to make hī forain, which is not also in al the forenamed bishops, yea, ī al catholik bishops beside those of the realm of Englād?

Fourthly, when you renounce euery forain Prelat▪ You doe plainly renoūce al Prelates whatsoeuer without the realm [ 4] of Englād: and so you renoūce al society, cōmuniō ād Felo∣shyp of saints, that is of faithful folk in the Church of Christ.

Fiftly albeit the othe, had expresly named or entended to renoūce the pope only, yet in so doing they had renoūced al Catholik bishops beside. And that not only, because al Ca¦tholike bisshoppes are subiect to the Pope, as to their head

(whereby renoūcing the Head, you renoūce also the bodye vnder that Head) but also, because the faith, the doctrin, ād the religiō of the Pope of Rome is no other, thē the faith do¦ctrin ād religiō of al other Catholik bishops. Neither is the faith of other Catholik bishops any other faith, thē the Pops faith is. Therfor who renoūceth by othe the Pope of Rome for a forain Prelat, and his faith ād doctrine for forain, he re∣noūceth also by othe, the faith and doctrine of al other Ca∣tholik bishops without the Realme of England for forain.

[ 6] Sixtly in renoūcing, all power and Authority of euery forayn Prelat, you renoūce the Lutherā and Sacramētary Superin∣tēdents, of Geneua, of Zurich, of Basil, of Wittēberg and of al other protestāt prelats without the realm of Englād, no lesse then the Catholike bishopes in Germany, or any other where. And so stād you post alone in matters of religiō, not to be informed, instructed, or corrected in any doubtefull matter, or peril of schisme. As though you had a warrāt frō the holy Ghost, neither to faile in the faith, nor at any time to haue Prīces that may fayle. For al this you annex ād vnite to the Crown of Englād for euer. Seuēthly ād last in exclu∣dīg [ 7] ād renoūcing euery forain Prelat, ād al power, Authority ād Iurisdictiō of euery forain Prelat, you exclude ād renoūce the whol body of the Church without the realm, which cō¦sisteth most {pro}perly ād most effectually of the bishops ād pre¦lats the heads therof. And as in tēporal Iurisdictiō, the othe bindeth al the subiects of the Realm of Englād to obey the only kings and Quenes of that Realm (which we doe graūt also most gladly) so that if al princes in the worlde, woulde ioyne together ād cōclude a kind of regimēt, appoint lawes ād enact statutes for the better ordering ād directing of the cōmon wealth, the subiects of Englād by vertue of this othe are boūd to renoūce al such power, except our own prīce

would allow thē and cōdescēd thervnto (which thing is rea¦sonable enough, for al coūtries nede not to be gouerned in external maters after one sort, nor at al times a like, the state therof beīg chāgeable ād mutable) euē so in spiritual or Ec∣clesiastical Iurisdictiō, the othe so expressely renounceth al power ād Autority of forain prelats, that if al prelats ād bi∣shops of the world beside, wolde mete together or other∣wise agre ī one truth, order, or law ecclesiastical (which hath oftē ben don and may alwaies be done in general Coūcels) the subiects of Englād are boūd vnder pain of periury ād of a praemunire to renoūce al such orders, lawes, ād decrees or cōcluded Truthes: which is shortly to say, to renounce and forsweare al obediēce to the General Councels, that is, the whole corps of Christendome represented therin, except it shal please the prīce ād prelats of our Coūtre to agre to the same. Which is to make our prīce, ād our prelats either as su¦periours to al other prīces ād Coūtries, or at the lest as alie∣nats ād strāgers frō the whole body of Christendō beside, as though we had a proper Christ, a proper Ghospell, ād loo∣ked for a proper heauē, in the which other christened Na∣tiōs should find no place. And what is this els, but by booke Othe flatly to renoūce the Catholik Church, ād the cōmu∣niō of Saints, both which in our Crede we professe to be∣leue? These be (M. Horn) the horrible absurdities that doth necessarily folow of this part of the Othe: And wheras M. Horn sayth, it were ouer much detestable if M. Fecknam were moued to sweare, but against one article of our Crede, M. Horn muste nedes confesse this othe to be ouer muche detesta∣ble, whereby not onely M. Fekenham, but many other are moued and forced to sweare againste an especiall article of our Crede: to wit, Against our obedience to the Catho∣lyke Churche. The effecte of the Othe, and the sence of

that Article, being cleane contrary one to the other. The which, that it may to the vnlerned Reader more plainely appeare, in this Table following I haue opened the whole contrariety.

THE TABLE

The Article of our Crede.

I beleue the Catholike Churche.

Hereof ariseth this proposition, as M. Fekenham by a si∣militude setteth it forth, and M. Horn alloweth it. fol. 100. b.

All Englishmen being Christians ought to admitte, and re∣ceyue, professe, and obey the Authority of the Catholike Church, that is, of the bishops of all Christendome (of whome the grea∣test part are forayne prelats to our Realme) in matters of faith and doctrine touching the same.

The contrary hereof is.

No Englishmen though Christians, may admitte, professe or obey any Authority of any forain prelat without the Realme of England.

The tenour of one parte of the Othe, as M. Horne reporteth it: pag. 99. b.

All true subiectes ought and muste renounce and forsake all forraine iu∣risdictions, povvers, superiority, preeminences and Authorities of euery forayn prince and prelat, state or potentat.

The equiualent of this part of the Othe is.

No true subiect of England (though Christian) ought or may admitte and receyue any forraine Authority, power or Iurisdiction, of any forayne prelat.

Thus then, the equiualent proposition of the Othe, matcheth iumpe with the contrary of the Article, and stā∣deth cleane opposite to the equiualent of the Article. Thus.

The equiualēt pro∣position of the Arti∣cle of our Crede, is.		The equiualent of the Othe, is.
Al Englishmen be∣ing Christiās ought to admit and receiue the autority of forain pre∣lats, (the most part of Christēdome being to vs foraine) in matters of faith and Doctrine touching the same by them authorised.	Contrary.	No Englishmen thoughe Christians ought or may admitte and receyue any fo∣rayne Authoritye of any forayne prelat.
Subalterne.	CONTRADICTORY. CONTRA∣DICTORY.	Subalterne.
Some Englishmen being Christiās ought to admitte and recey∣ue the Authoritye of forayne prelats &c.	Subcontrary.	Some Englishmen being Christiās ought not to receiue and ad∣mit, but to renounce and forsake al forayne authority of al forayn prelats &c.

By this it appeareth, that the equiualent of the Othe is cleane contrary to the plaine sence of the Article of Our Crede, sette forthe by M. Fekenham in the similitude of the members and the body: and in the same similitude cō∣fessed of M. Horne for good. By this also it appereth, that a true subiect taking the Othe (meaning as he sweareth,

which if he doe not, he forsweareth himselfe) and a true Christian professing his Crede can not possibly stande to∣gether, but are direct contrarye one to the other. The one professīg obediēce to the body of the Church (cōsistīg for the most and chiefest parte of forayne Bisshoppes) as e∣uery member must obey the whole body: the other renoū∣cing flatly all Authoritye of all forayne prelates, as in dede no member of that Catholike body, but as a schismaticall parte cutte of from the whole. Then will it to our greate confusion of vs be verified which S. Augustine saieth. Tur∣pis omnis pars est,* 1.142 suo vniuerso non congruens. Filthye and shamefull is that parte, which agreeth not with his whole. And which is not only shamefull, but most pernicious and daungerous of all, what place shall then all General Coun∣celles haue with vs? Quorumest in Ecclesia saluberrima Au∣thoritas:* 1.143 whose Authority in the Church is most holesome, saieth S. Augustin?

Verilye the Christen inhabitants of our Countre, more then a thousande yeres paste had learned an other lesson. For whereas the Pelagian heretikes hadde infected the Brittaynes with their pestiferous heresie,* 1.144 the Brittaynes them selues being (as venerable Bede recordeth) neither willing to receaue their lewde doctrine, neither able to re∣fute theire wyly and wicked persuasions: deuised this hol∣some Councell, to seke for ayde of the Bisshoppes of Frāce, against their spirituall enemies wherevpō two learned bis∣shops of France Germanus and Lupus were sent into Brit∣tanie, to redresse and represse those heresies. If those Ca∣tholike Brittanies had taken such an othe, as M. Horn here doth iustifie: they should I trow haue incurred periurie or treason, to seke redresse in matters of religion at the handes

of those foraine Bisshoppes.

Likewise when Melitus the first Bisshoppe of London trauailed out of Englande to Rome,* 1.145 to counsell Pope Boniface of matters touching the direction of the Englishe Churche: when also the Clergy of Scotlande, being trou∣bled with the Pelagian heresie and schismaticall obserua∣tion of Easter, sent to Rome for redresse, Maister Horne must be driuen to say, either that those Bisshoppes com∣mitted periurie and treason against their Princes, or els that in those dayes no such othe was tendred, nor no such regiment practised on Princes partes, as this othe com∣maundeth.

Farder, if it be necessarie, reasonable, or requisite, that all true subiestes must renounce the Iurisdiction and Autho∣ritye of euery forain prelate: Howe farre was S. Augustine ouersene, which so often tymes, so earnestlye, and so ex∣pressely chargeth the Donatistes, with the Authoritie, power and iurisdiction of forain prelates beyond the seas out of Afrike? He saieth of them, touching the accusation of Cecilianus their Bisshoppe,* 1.146 Quem primò vtique apud col∣legas transmarinos conuincere debuerant. They ought first of all to haue conuinced him before his fellowe Bisshops beyond the seas. He saith farder, that in case Cecilian hadde bene gyltye, they ought not therefore to separate themselues from the Churches beyonde the seas, of E∣phesus, of Smirna, of Laodicea, and of other Countreis. He saith, the whole Churche of Christ is but one bodye: And they that separate them selues from that bodye, vt eorum cōmunio non sit cū toto, quacū{que} diffunditur,* 1.147 sed in aliqua parte separata inueniatur, manifestum est, eos non esse in Ecclesia Ca∣tholica, so that they cōmunicate not with the whole (body)

whersoeuer it be spred abroad, but be foūd to be separated in some parte therof, it is manifest, that they be not in the Catholike Churche.

I say nowe M. Horne: yf by vertue of this othe euerye true subiect must renounce euery foraine prelate: then did S. Augustine much wronge to the Donatistes, to require them to conuince their aduersarie before the Bisshops be∣yond the seas, which doth import an Authority of al those forain bishops ouer the Africans alone: thē was he to blame to charge them with separatiō frō forain prelates of Ephe∣sus, Smirna, and Laodicea, and other Countreis. Last of all, then was he farre wyde to pronounce them for mē cleane out of the Catholike Churche, which seuered them selues from the society of any part thereof. Then also might the Donatist (had he learned so far furth his lesson as you haue) both easied him self of much trauell out of Afrike into Ita∣ly and Fraunce, and also might sone haue stopped S. Au∣gustines mouth, saying: What haue we to doe with forain prelates beyond the seas, what nede we care for their Au∣thority, iurisdiction, society, and communion? We are true subiectes of Afrik. We renounce al foraine power, Iurisdi∣ction and Authoritye.

And truely I see no cause, but with as good reason and conscience, al subiects of all realmes may and ought to re∣nounce by othe the power and Authoritie of al forain pre∣lats or bishops out of their land and Countre, as we of En∣glād must ād ought so to do out of ours. Which if it be ones graunted, enacted and agreed vpō in al other realmes, as it is in oures: what ende wil there be of schismes and dissension in the Church? What hope of vnytie can be cōceyued? Or howe can euer vnytie be long maintayned? What commu∣nion,

what society, what felowshippe can there be amonge Christen people? What Authorytie shall general Councels haue, which consiste in maner altogether in forayn prelates and bishops, if this othe be accompted good? In the first, se∣cond, third, fourth, fyft, sixt,* 1.148 seuenth and eigth general Coū∣cell of Christendom we reade not of any one Braityne or English bishop to haue ben present there. In the 6. general Councels pope Agatho cōfessed that Theodorus the Arch∣bishop of Caunterbury was called thither, and long looked for. But for his great charge at home, in those beginnings of the English Church he came not. Wilfrid of Yorke was at Rome, but not at Constantinople where that general Coū∣cel was holden. What thē? shal our Church of England re∣nounce the Authoryte of al those general Councels as the Authorytie of foraine prelats by vertu of this Othe? What can be more detestable or abhomynable? But they which conceyued and endyted firste this thirde parte of the Othe, of renouncing all Authoryte of euery forain prelat, had they not (trow you M. Horn) a directe ey to general Councels, and did they not by that clause closely disburden and dis∣charge the whole realme of al obedience to general Coū∣celles, namely to the general Coūcel of Trent that thē was assembled? And if they intended not so much, see you not then, howe vnaduisedly, howe daungerously, and to howe great a preiudice that part of the Othe was conceyued and endyted? Aga••ne yf so much was not intended, howe co∣meth it to passe, that in the iniunctions where the Othe is drawen (as much as may be) to a gentle exposition, this part is not so interpreted, as it might not seme to exclude the Authority of general Councels: then the which there is in the Churche no higher or more Supreme Authoritye, ex∣cepte

the Pope him selfe, that is the vndoubted Heade thereof.

* 1.149By this that hath ben said appereth M. Horne, how fals∣ly and slaunderously you charge M. Fekenhā with thre se∣ueral lies l••wde, shameful, ād mōstrous. For first it is no lewde lie, but a foule and lewde heresy of yours, that you haue e∣rected a new faith, a new Religion, and a new vse of Sacra∣ments, not only to al the Church throughout the worlde before your daies, but also frō your felow protestāts the Lu∣therās, the Osiādrins ād the Anabaptists. If you take this for a slaūder, clere your self of your horrible heresies ād schisms in the table of Staphylus. It is no shameful lie, but a shameful and worse then a detestable case, that by this corporall othe you haue forced many a soule to renoūce and refuse in effect, though not in plain words (the deuil hīself would not be so bolde, at lest at the beginning) these two Articles or points of our faith, I beleue the Catholik Church, and, I be∣leue the Cōmunion of Saints. It is no mōstrous lie, but a most monstrous and pytiful case that, you by othe renoūcing the power and Authority of euery forain prelat in plaine Englishe, haue made the Catholik Church which cōsisteth of al fo∣rain prelats and bisshops out of England, not of English bis∣shops onely, in plaine Englishe a mere foraine power and Authority out of Englande. For yf euery foraine prelat be renounced, is not all power and Authority of the Church which dependeth only of Prelates and Bisshops, accomp∣ted also forayne, and for very forayne renounced? It is so. It is so, Maister Horne. The Othe runneth largely and ex∣pressely. You can not, you may not, you shal not (God ge∣uing vs his grace) bleare our eyes with vayn talke, or make vs to say we see not, that which we see, we heare, we

feele, we vnderstande. You sawe, you sawe your self M. Horne,* 1.150 that the woordes of the Othe being taken as they lie verbatim (as you say they must) did expressely renounce the Catholike Churche. And therefore (Marke wel gentle Reader) You M. Horne thinking and labouring to remoue this opinion from the Reader (for though you thinke in ve∣ry dede, that nor Churche nor prelat, but only the expresse liuely worde of God muste be heard and obeyed, yet yow dare not as yet for very shame to expresse that detestable minde of yours, the lusty braue Chalenge of Maister Iewel offering to yeld to any one sentence or any one old doctor withdrawing you perhaps not a litle therfro) do tel hī that the Othe maketh no mention in any one worde of the Catho∣like Church, but it speaketh (say you) of a forain Prince and Prelate &c. Wherein to auoyde the manifest absurditye, you flatly belye the Othe. For the Othe speaketh not (M. Horne) of a forain Prince and Prelate &c. But the Othe ex∣pressly saith, of euery forain Prince and Prelat &c. Now whē it renoūceth the power of euery forain Prelat, it renounceth the power of al Catholik Bishops without the realm of En∣gland, which al are forain Prelats to the realm of England, whereupon in dede M. Fekenham cōcludeth, not as it were by reuelation in a Monkishe dream without ryme or reason (as that grosse head of yours most vilely rayleth against such a sobre and discrete prelate) but with good reason and plaine euidence, that therefore the Catholik Church is by Othe renoū∣ced. Not as though there were no difference betwene a foraine Prince or Prelat, and the Catholike Church (as you ful peuishly make Maister Fekenham to reason) but bycause there is no difference betwene euery foraine Prelate (as the Othe spea∣keth) and the Catholike Churche.

Seing (as I haue often said) the Catholyk Church consisteth of euery forayn Prelate, without the realme of Englād, much more then of al the prelates within the realme of Englād. Yea though euery foraine prelate without the realme of England, may and haue in many General councells prescri∣bed ouer al the bishoppes of England, yet all the Bishoppes of England nether haue or may at any tyme prescribe ouer euery foraine Prelate without the realme of England. This othe therfore excludeth plainely the Authority of the Ca∣tholike Church, and fighteth directly against all good rea∣son and order.* 1.151

Now the definitiō or descriptiō of the catholik Church, such as ye bring, is much lyke to a shooe, that serueth euery fote: or to a Welshmans hose, that serueth euery legge. Si∣mon Magus, Marcion, Hebion, Manicheus, Photinus, Arrius, Nestorius, and al other sects that euer were, will graunt to this your definition, and wil therby challenge the Church to their sect only, as ye do to yours. But herein your syna∣goge resembleth the faulse and schismatical tēple that Onias made in Aegypte: and Sanaballites in Samaria in the mount of Garizim, wherof the ghospel of S. Iohn speaketh, though yt doth not so expresly name it. And though God had spe∣cially appointed the temple of Hierusalē to be his true and holy temple, and would al sacrifices to be offred there: yet the Samaritanes toke their temple to be the true and the only temple where God would be honored in: And sayed that all offerings and sacrifices should be made ther, and not at Hierusalem. The Iewes (sayth Iosephus) when they had vn∣lawfully maried, when they had transgressed and violated the Sabbot day, or eaten meates, or don other things, contrary to the Lawe, fearing punishment for the same, would fly to the Sama∣ritanes,

and to the false bishop there, and complaine to him, that they were wrongfully vexed, at Hierusalem, and so did ioyne with the sayd schismaticall factiō at the temple of Garizim. And, there was (sayth Iosephus) continuall strief, and conten∣tion betwene the Iewes and the Samaritanes,* 1.152 eche parte with much sturre and busines, preferring and auauncing their owne temple, yea the matter went so farre, and the Samaritanes waxed so hotte and feruent at the length, that they offered them selues to die in the quarrell and defence of theire hill and temple. And this controuersy,* 1.153 bursting out at Alexādria into a sedition, was tried (by the common consent of both parties) by the kinge Ptolomeus Philomitor. Eche of them making this offer, that, that party shuld suffer death, whose proufs shuld be founde defectyue and insufficiente: the issewe of the whole contention was, that the king pronounced and gaue sentence for the Iewes: bicause they proued the continual suc∣cession of their bishops at Hierusalem from the beginning, and that the kings of Asia had euer honored, and with great re∣wardes enriched that temple as Gods true temple. Whervppon the proctours of the Samaritanes were by the kinges com∣maundement put to death, whome notwithstāding the Sa∣maritans toke for as blessed martyrs, as M. Foxe taketh, any of his ragged rablement in his new holy ma••tyrologe. This schismatical synagog is the very patern of your Church M. Horne. Sentence hath bene geuen against your synagoge, by many good and catholike kings, by many general coun∣cells. And yt is a most euident, yea and a blasphemous lie a∣gainst the Saints in heauē, to say as ye doe, that al the Saints and faythful Christiās, that be or hath bene, are of your Church. What so euer visour ye put vppon your Church, when we ones come to the cheif poynte, to knowe the Church by,

and by the which the temple of Hierusalem was iustified: I meane the continuall succession without any interruptiō of bishops in the sea of Rome, and in al other openly kno∣wen to be catholik Churches, maynteyning that faith, that ye namely in this boke impugne: then it wil easely appeare, what your Church is, and howe vnperfytte your definition is, that lacketh one infallible marke, whereby ye may sone disseuer the false from the true Church, to wytte, the knowē succession of bishops from age to age, in all places of the Christened worlde, al which the worde, Catholike, impor∣teth: and the which therfore you haue omitted, bicause you are not in dede of the Catholik Churche: and bicause those markes, of vniuersalyte, of Antiquite, and of a knowen suc∣cession doe vtterly wante, in that you call your Churche. Els if you haue those markes, and we haue not, procure, I pray you M. Horne, that some one of your brethern (I pro∣uoke them al in this matter) doe answere, if he can, to the Fortresse of our first fayth, by me set forth, and annexed to the history of venerable Bede. Let any one of them al disproue the reasons there brought, out of the Psalmes, the prophets, and of the Ghospel, if he cā, wherby it is clerly proued, that that Church only (which you cal papistry) must be the true Church of Christ. I speake not this, vpon any confidence of my owne doinges, which I doe sincerely acknowleadge to be very simple and base, but vpon the confidence of the cause: which I doe assuredly knowe in this pointe to be so stronge, that al the heretical assaultes you shal make against it, shall neuer be able to shake it. Thus of that.

Now, wheras the Catholik Church requireth, as M. Fek. sheweth a cōmunion of Saynts, in one doctrine, one fayth of Sa∣craments and other things: the lack of this cōmuniō and par∣ticipatiō

of this one fayth doth bewray what your Church is: which sore fayne would ye salue, but with howe euidēt and howe notorious a lye, ye force not. For what passīg ād shameful impudēcy is it for you, to vaunt your self and your newe Ghospel to be at an attonement and agreemēt in re∣ligion: seing that it is so euidēt to al the world, that the Lu∣therans and the Zuinglians be at the daggers poynte with their hot cōtentiō in the sacramētary matter? If the Church nowe of England be Catholike, then is the Saxonicall and Germanical Church hereticall. As contrarywise if Luthers Church be catholik, then is your Church heretical. Howe can ye bragg as ye doe, that you nowe agree and consent in the vnyte of this Catholyk fayth in necessary doctrine at home so much, you say, as neuer at any time more, seinge that so late one of your owne protestant bishops, in opē parliamēt stood against your boke of articles lately set forth as agreed vpō in your cōuocation? And seing the sayd boke, off••ed vp to be confirmed by parliament was reiected?

But what a perpetual shame is it to you M. Horn, and all your holy brotherhood, that yet to this howre the trage∣dy of your horrible dissension lasteth, euen in the first foun∣dation of your ragged Ghospell in these lowe Countries here of Brabant and Flaundres? If you know not the case,* 1.154 I will shortly certify you the newes. In the towne of Ant∣werpe your brethren the Sacramentaries of Geneua had theire churches fairly built. The Lutherans also had theire churches. This was euident to the eye. Our owne countre∣men the marchants ther can beare me witnesse. Is this an agreement M. Horne, that you must eche haue your Chur∣ches a parte, your seuerall preachers, your parted congre∣gations? that one muste be called the Martinistes Church

(of Martin Luther so called) the other must be called the Caluinists Church, of Caluin of Geneua? But forth. It came to the point in Antwerpe, that the Caluinistes tooke armes against their Prince, the .xiij. of Marche last being thursday. A worthy monyment of their holy profession. For wil you knowe the cause why? Forsoth because the same daye in the forenoone, certain of their brethern to the number of 200. and vpward were slayne in the fielde beside a number drowned in the ryuer, and taken aliue, nigh to Antwerpe by a power of the Lady Regent, which said brethern with a great number more had made a profession (which also for certain dayes they had put in practise) to range aboute the Countrie, and to ease al Churches and Churchmen of their goods, mary yet of conscience, not iniuring any laye man. The quicke iustice done vpon such open robbers and theues, the holy brethern of your sect not abyding, forese∣ing that yf such pageants were longe played, their partes were like to followe, moued them immediatly as I said to take armes against their Prince in Antwerpe, to require the kays of the gates, the Churches of the Catholikes to be disposed at their pleasure, the expulsion of al religious per∣sons and priests &c. All which things were graunted vnto them by the gouernor of the town, vpon a dayes delibera∣tion, that al thinges might be done quietly: And they thus for the space of .ij. nightes and one day ruled al the roste in Antwerpe. What outrages in that small season they com∣mitted, namely vpon the poore grey friers, whose knowen vertues irked them most aboue al other orders, I let passe. The Saterday being the .x. of Marche in the morning, whē your brethern the Sacramētaries M. Horn, contynuing stil in Armes, ād gapīg hourely for the satisfying of their gredy

appetite, thought presently to become Lordes of so riche a towne, they sawe sodenly in Armes, brauely and strongly appointed against them, not only the Catholike marchāts, Italians, Spanyardes, Portugalles, Burgunyons ād Antwer∣pians them selues, but also they sawe M. Horne to their great greefe the very Martinistes or Lutherans (betwene whom and you, you pretend allwaies such agreement) in Armes also against them. And that morning lo M. Horne was the last ioyful houre that your Sacramētary brethern sawe in that towne. For immediatly finding themselues to weake, they were faine to yeld vp the attillery which vp∣pon the soden two dayes before they had seasoned vpon, and in stede of their beggarly and trayterous crie of which all Antwerpe before did ring, in stede I say of Viue le Geus, to crye, full sore against their hartes: Viue le Roy. God saue the kinge. From that day forewarde your brethern went backewarde. Valēcene the first and chief rebelling towne wythin ix. dayes after was taken. The preachers within xiiij. dayes after that, bothe Sacramentary and Lutheran haue voyded the towne, yea the whole countre. God be praised. But this I tell you M. Horne, that you may note, howe the Lutheranes them selues stode in Armes against the Caluinistes: Protestants against Protestants, yea in the quarell of protestanticall prowes.

In like maner, in the yere .1561. in Aprill, the Senat of Francford being Lutherās,* 1.155 banished out of their towne the renegat Caluinistes of Fraunce. In the same yere, the inha∣bitans of Breme being Caluinistes draue out the Lutherās.

If all this will not serue to proue a clere and playne dis∣sensiō in matters of religiō against you, thē behold an other argumēt inuincible M. Horne. Your brethern the Sacra∣mentaries

in Antwerp haue published in print a Confessiō of their false faith. The Lutherans or Martinists haue prin∣ted also an other of theirs. Both are cōfuted by the Catho∣like Doctors of this Vniuersity. The first by Frāciscus Son∣nius B. of Hartoghenbusch. The other by Iudocus Tiletanus, a learned professour of Diuinitie here. The Lutherans pre∣tend to be called by the Magistrates of Antwerp. The Cal∣uinists for lacke of such authority, haue printed their Con∣fessiō Cū gratia & priuilegio Altissimi. With grace and pri∣uilege of the highest. And this lo, was I trow a more Speci∣al Priuilege, then M. Iewels was, though he prīted his Re∣plie to, With Special Priuilege. But such Priuileges of he hig∣hest, euery rascal heretik can pretend, no lesse then the Sa∣cramentaries. And this is a high Diuinitie, the publishing wherof passeth al Princes Priuileges, and must be set from the highest him self. Bilike these mē would seme to be cal∣led as S. Paul was,* 1.156 Nō ab hominibus, ne{que} per hominē, sed per Iesum Christū, Not of men, nor by man, but by Iesus Christ, euen with a voice frō heauen. O peuish pride and most fōd presumption. But to the matter.

The Lutherans or Martiniste Ministers of Antwerpe in their Confession haue one whole Chapter Contra errorem Sacramentariorum: Against the errour of the Sacramenta∣r••es. It is the seuententh in number. In that Chapter they proue the Reall presence, and the Consecration of the Mysteries, and they labour to cōfute the fond obiectiōs of the Sacramentaries (vsed also very sadly of M. Iewel in his Replie) against the Reall presence,* 1.157 touching the tropicall sence of Christes wordes (whiche they denie vtterly) and touching the assension of Christe into heauen, which they proue (though by an other errour of their owne, as Tileta∣nus

at large declareth) that the same article maketh nothīg against the Real or Corporal presence of Christ in the Sa∣crament.

Briefely the Lutherans do thus pronounce of your Bre∣thern the Sacramentaries Communion M. Horne,* 1.158 which you doe make so holy a matter. The Lutheran Ministers of Antwerp in their printed Confession, say thus: Caluinista∣rum Leiturgia nō vno sacrilegio vitiata, cōtaminata{que} est, eo{que} (proh dolor) passim innumeras animas aeterno exitio inuoluit. The Cōmunion of the Caluinists is defiled and contamina∣ted with diuers Sacrilegies: ād therfore (alas) it enwrappeth euery where infinit nūbers of soules into eternal damnatiō. Lo, M. Horne, what agreemēt in Religion there is betwen you Protestaunts. Your holy Cōmunion of England is cō∣demned for sacrilegious, and damnable of your owne bre∣thren the scholers of Martin Luther, whom your Apology commendeth for a most excellent man, and one sent of God to lighten his Church. All that frequente your holie Com∣munion, Maister Horne, are damned, saie the Lutherans of Antwerpe.

Bragge no more, Maister Horne, of your agreement. Your horrible dissention glistereth so cleere, cryeth so lowd, and blustereth so great, that as long as we haue eyes to see, eares to heare, and hands to fele, we can not choose but behold it in the face, we must nedes heare the voice of it, and our senses must of necessitie palpablie feele it. And the sight, the voyce and the sense therof, cōuinceth vnto vs with an vnuincible Argument,* 1.159 that your whole Religi∣on is a cleere heresie, as proceeding from the Deuill the spirit of dissention, not from God, who is the God of vnity, peace and concorde.

The .160. Diuision. Pag. 101. a.

M. Fekenham.

The fourth and last point is, that I must swere to the obseruatiō of this othe, not only to the Quenes highnes ād our soueraign Lady that now is, but also vnto her heyers and successours Kings and Queenes of this Realme. And bicause euery Christian man ought to be carefull to auoid periurie therein, I would right gladly knowe, that if any her highnes successours should by the refusall of the said title of Supremacie, bind her subiects by the like statute lawe vnto the cleane contrarie (experience whereof was of late made here in this Realme, that it is yet freshe in the memories of all men) In this case I would right gladly knowe, what authoritie is able to dispence againe with this Othe. And if there be none at all, then the subiectes of this Realme in this case are bounde, and that by booke Othe, to liue in a continuall disobedience to the lawes of their soueraigne Lord or Ladie, King or Quene: the case wherof is very lamentable. And christian charity would, that it shoulde be foreseene and prouided for. And for mine owne parte (being further touched herein, then I haue yet expressed) my very trust and hope is, that the charity of this our newe refourmed Churche here in this realme, shal not be found so colde and shorte, as in proui∣ding so sharpe lawes and paines of death to force men to take this othe, of the Quenes Highnes Supreamacie, but

that it will prouide also such meanes and wayes, wherby the subiects may receiue the same with safe cōscience, and without al periurie. And in so doing, I shal most willing∣ly submit my selfe, and receiue also that part of the Othe. And shall further therevpon set foorth the Quenes high∣nes Supremacie with al Titles and Prerogatiues, bothe by penne and worde of mouth, and that with as desirous harte and glad will, as any subiect that is this day liuing in her highnesse Realme. So that of the premisses ye may well vnderstande, that there is in mee no other cause of staie, touching the later part of this Othe, then very con∣science. And that I would before right gladly know (tou∣ching these forenamed points) how I might sweare vnto them, and not committe periurie therein.

M. Ho••ne.

As euerie Christian man ought to be carefull to auoide Periurie both in this and al other matters: euen so vvise men may vvell knovve, vvhat you meane by the conditionall case ye put, of the refusall by her highnesse Succes∣sours of this Title: vvhereto the holy Ghoste maketh you this plaine ansvver: Spes Hypocritae peribit: The Hypocrites hope shall perishe. You sprinkle this doubtfull case vvith a pouder of late experience, ••vhiche seasoneth your mater, De facto, non de Iure. For it is not lavvfull for any Christian prince to refuse (.554.)* 1.160 this Supremacie, vvhich is the beste parte of his princely Ministery, and seruice vnto God. Neither may be more bi••de his subiectes by lavve to become svvoren to the Pope and Poperye, than to the (••55.)* 1.161 greate ••urke and turkerie. For that the Pope is a more peril¦lous (.556.)* 1.162 ennemie vnto Christ, than the turke: and Popery much more Idolatrous, then turkery. And therefore there is no humaine Authoritie, that can dispence vvith the violation of this lavvfull Othe, made of duety vnto the Christian Princes.

This is a lamētable case I graūt, that subiectes should liue in cōtinual diso∣bediēce to the lavves of the prince, vvhether it happē for that the lavves be so vngodly, that a christian subiect may not vvith good cōsciēce obey thē (expe∣rience vvherof vvas of late made here in this Realme.) Or for that the stub∣bornesse of the subiect mainteined vvith a vvicked, and yet a vaine hope. be so stiffe, that vvilfully he liueth in a cōtinual disobediēce to the Godly lavves of his soueragine, vvherof experience is made novv at this time in you, and a fevve others of your (.557.)* 1.163 conspiracie There is good cause, vvhie ye should haue your very trust ād hope (as you saie ye haue, hovv vngratiousely soeuerye thīk) assured of the charity of our church nevvly reformed after the rule of gods vvord, vvherat ye Popish * 1.164 svvine grunte and groine. For you, in your ovvne self, haue perfect experiēce, that the supreme gouernour vnder Christ of this realm, folovving the exāple of her heauēly father, doth boūtifully, of her good∣nes, vvith much more patiēce, and lōg sufferīg allure you to dutiful repētāce. And hath further prouided sundry meanes and vvaies, vvherby to remoue your vvilful ignorance, and to endue you vvith sufficient knovvledge of the truthe, hovv ye might vvith salfe conscience receiue this dutifull Othe of a true sub∣iecte, vvithout all periurie.

The .5. Chapter. Of M. Fekenhams fourth chiefe point.

Stapleton.

IN this Diuisiō you lie and raile blasphemously and horri∣bly, euē as if Sathā had presētly entred into you, and prō∣pted vnto you at your backe, both such cācred matter as your poisoned hart hath cōceiued, ād also such foul termes, as your spritish pen hath endited. M. Fekenhā demaūded of you a very reasonable demaund, that is, in case he or other should now take this new found Othe, and that it should so chaūce, that any of the Princes successours should bind his subiects by the like statute law, to the cleane cōtrary, how they might be dispensed withal. To this, you M. Horne, in stede of some good reasō, fal to detestable railing: and ye say that the 2. oth must in no wise be geuē, for that the Pope is a more perillous enemy vnto Christ, then the Turke, and Poperie is more idolatrous, then Turkery. Of the which blasphemouse

answere (yf yt be true) yt must by a necessary consequente follow, that not only al the catholik princes that now liue, but that all the other that either liued in Englande sence it was first christened by S. Augustin our Apostle, or else where in christēdome for this .15. hundred yeares, with all their people, be and haue bene idolatours, and worse then Turkes. For by Popery M. Horne meaneth the Popes reli∣giō: which is none other now, thē yt was whē Englād was first christened, as appeareth by the historye of Venerable Bede▪ ād by the Fortresse ānexed therevnto. Yea thē it was 15. hundred yeares paste. Al the which time all Christiā and catholik natiōs, were euer ioyned with the sea of Rome in one faith and religiō. A heauy and a sorowful thing yt is to heare out of the mowth of one that beareth him self for a prelat of the see of Winchester,* 1.165 such spitiful words for the which he may be ful wel a prelat of the Alcoran. How be yt as horible as this talke is, yt is no vnwonte talke to the best of this new gospelling generatiō. For euē the Apostle of thē Luther maketh more accompt of the Turke, then of many Christiā princes: ād for a while he both preached ād wrote, that yt was not lawful for Christians to kepe anye warre with him. Namely that to warre against the Turkes, was to resist God, visitīg our iniquites by thē. It is one of his Ar¦ticles that he defendeth against the Church of Rome. And yt is writen that the Turk hearing of theis his doinges, and into what diuisiō he had brought Christēdom, liked it very well: and enquiring of his age, when he heard he was fifty yeres old, I would, {quod} the Turke he were yonger, the tyme shoulde perhaps ones come, when Luther shoulde fynde me his good Lord: which whē Luther heard of, he blessed him selfe and saied: God saue me from such a good Lorde.

Yea euen to this day Luther hath many schollers that de∣horteth Christian mē to resiste the Turkes, especially Clau∣dius Monerius one of the late holie martyrs of this newe ghospelling Church: who misliketh all the Christian mens defence,* 1.166 that they make to withstād the Turke, and saieth, that the knightes of the Rhodes are nothing but a graf that the heauenly Father neuer graffed, and therefore owght to be plucked vp by the roote. Let no man nowe merueill, yf the Turkes prosper so againste the Christiās, seing that he hath suche frendes at home here amonge our selues. Wherof you M. Horne are not one of the least, but a very Goliath, and much worse then he, so desperatly and so arrogantlie defying and reuiling the host of the liuing God, that is the whole catholike churche, much more vilanously and tray∣terously, than the sayd wicked Philistian did. For he was a sworen and professed enemy to the people of God: and therefore therein he did but his kinde. But you professing your selfe not only a friēd, but also a Captaine of the Chri∣stian army, (the place that you occupie, considered), do beare thereunto, a deuelish and a Philistian harte, as your Turkish, not Christian penne hath vttered. And yet yf ye had proued any thing all this while in your answere, to the derogation of the Popes authority, or of the religion, that he mainteineth, mens eares woulde lesse haue glowed, to heare you talke so Turkishlie. We haue in dede great bra∣uery in talke, and horrible woordes, withowt any substan∣tiall proufe of the matter ye take in hande. Yea, ye are ra∣ther ouerborne and beaten downe with a number of your owne allegations and authorities. As for the place of Iob ye alleage, that the hypocrites hope shall perishe, doth no more touche M. Fekenham and his fellowes, then yt did

touche the blessed man Iob. Baldad did vntruely charge him with yt, and ye doe as baldly, and as vntruely charge nowe the catholikes therwith. The Catholiks haue almost one thousand of yeres quietly possessed and enioyed their faith in our realme that ye peuishely and prowdly call Po∣pery. The religion that ye professe hath not as yet, contine∣wed there vnder anie one Prince tenne yeares together. Miracles ye worke none, though many wōders ye worke, for your procedinges are altogether to be wondered at. Neither the lyfe of your sect is so vertuouse, nor the lear∣ning so greate, that either wyse men, and suche as haue the feare of God in them, may sodenly be drawen from theire aunciente Catholike faith: or that ye may so binde Princes nowe lyuing and all theire successours, by suche a Turkish answere to a reasonable demaunde, as they may not in any wise mainteyne that faith, that notoriously and commonly was mainteyned in Englande almost a thousande yeares, ere ye were borne. M. Feckenhās most reasonable demaūd therfore remayneth vnanswered, and the foule absurdyte, which he obiecteth vnauoyded, appereth well (as it is in dede) by your silence vnauoydable.

••he .161. Diuision. pag. 102. a. M. Fekenham.

Here foloweth the Resolutions of the are foresayde Scru∣ples, made by my L. Bishop of VVinchester.

For a resolute ansvvere to all the saide Scruples, ex∣pressed in the forenamed poinctes, his L. sayde, that he did muche lamente, that the right meaninge of the Othe; had not beene in season opened and declared vnto me,

whan the onely lacke of the right vnderstanding thereof, hath bene the cause of such staies and distourbance of cō∣science. Whereas the Q. Maiesties meaning in that Othe, is farre otherwise, thā the expresse words are, as they lie verbatim, like as it doth well appeare by her Highnes interpretatiō made thereof in the Iniunctiōs. Therevnto my obiectiō was, that vndoutedly her Highnes did fully meane and mind to claim and take al spiritual gouernmēt vpō her: for besides the expres wordes of the Othe, wher∣vnto al mē be bound to swere verbatim as they lie, with∣out al chaunge and alteratiō making of any word or sense thereof, her Highnes (in the interpretation set foorth in her Iniūctiōs) doth by very playn words, claime the same spiritual gouernmēt here in this realme of the Church of England, that her highnes father Kinge Henry, and her brother king Edwarde did enioye and claime before her: in the which iniunctiōs, and in the late acte of Parleamēt also her highnes doth claime no more spiritual gouernmēt nor no lesse, but so much in euery point, as they had with∣out all exception. For answere his L. did still continue in the deniall thereof, and that her Highnes meaning was not to take so much of Spiritual authority and power vp∣pon her, as they did: with affirmation, that he did moste certainly and assuredly know her highnes minde therein. Then for some issue to be had of this matter, seeing that the meaning of the Othe, is not as the expresse words doe

purport: And seing that his L. did so well vnderstand her Highnes meaning therein, and thereby the very righte sence therof, I besought him, that his L. would take some paines for truthes sake to penne the same: wherevpon his L. did penne and write the interpretatiō of the said Othe as hereafter followeth. I.A.B. do vtterly testifie and de∣clare in my cōscience, that the Q. Highnes is the only Su∣preme gouernor of this Realm, and of al other her High∣nes dominiōs and countries, as wel in al spiritual or ecclesi¦astical things or causes, as tēporal. That is, to haue the so∣ueraingtie and rule ouer al manner persons, borne within her Realmes, dominions and coūtries, of what estate ei∣ther Ecclesiastical or tēporal so euer they be. And to haue authority and power to visit the Ecclesiastical estate, and persons, to refourme, order, and correct the same: and all maner errours, heresies, schismes, abuses, offenses, cōtem∣ptes, and enormities. Yet neuertheles in no wise meaning, that the Kings and Queenes of this Realme, possessours of this crowne, may challenge authoritie or power of mi∣nisterie of diuine offices, as to preache the worde of God, to minister Sacramentes or rytes of the Churche appoin∣ted by Christe to the office of Churche ministers, to ex∣communicate, or to binde, or loose. Of the whiche fo∣wer pointes, three belong onely to the Ecclesiastical mi∣nisters, the fourthe is cōmon to them with the congrega∣tion, namely to excōmunicate. And that no forain Prince,

Person, Prelat, State or Potētate, hath or ought to haue any iurisdiction, Power, Superioritie, preheminence, or authority ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within this realme. And therefore I doe vtterly renounce al foraine iurisdi∣ctions, powers, superiorities, preheminences, and autho∣rities: That is, as no Secular or Laie Prince, other than the King or Quenes possessours of the Croune of this Re∣alme, of what Title or dignitie so euer they be, hathe or oughte to haue, anye Authoritie, soueraigntie, or pow∣er, ouer this Realme, ouer the Prince or Subiectes thereof. Euen so no manner of foraine Prelate or per∣son Ecclesiastical, of what title, name, so euer they be, neither the See of Rome, neither any other See, hathe or ought to haue, vse, enioye, or exercise, any maner of po∣wer, iurisdiction, authority, superioritie, preheminence, or priuilege spiritual or ecclesiastical within this realme, or within any the Quenes highnes dominions or Coūtries. And therefore, al suche foraine power vtterly is to be re∣noūced, and I do {pro}mise, &c. vt sequitur in forma iuramēti.

M. Horne.

These that ye terme Resolutions, are none of (.558.)* 1.167 mine, they are like him that forged them, false, feined, and ••alitious. They be your ovvne, ey∣ther ye could not, or ye vvere ashamed to adioyne my ansvvere to your seely obiections, and therfore ye feygned mee to vtter for resolutions, your ovvne peuissh cauillations. This report is false, that I should affirme the Queenes Maiesties meaning in that Othe to be farre othervvise then the expresse vvords are as they lie verbatim. This my constant assertion, that her highnes

mind and meaning is, to take so much, and no more of spiritual authority and povver vpon her, than King Henry, and king Edvvard enioyed and did iustly claime, you vntruely feygne to be your obiectiō. And that I should affirme of most certain and sure knovvledge, her Maiesties mind or the very right sence of the Othe, to be othervvise thā it is plainly set forth, is a malicious sclander, vvherof I vvil fetche no better profe, then the testimony of your mouth. Ye cō∣fesse that the interpretatiō folovving, vvas pēned and vvritē by me, to declare the very right sence and meaning of the Othe, vv••erein ye haue acquited me, and cōdēned your self, of a manifest vntruth. For the right sence and meaning declared in the interpretatiō that I made, and you haue set forth, doth (.559.)* 1.168 plainly shevve the cleane contrary, if you marke it vvel, to al that you here set forth in my name, vnder the title of my resolutions to your scruples. Further∣more, in the preface to your fornamed points, ye haue declared by vvord and vvriting, that I did require you presently to svveare and by othe to acknovv∣ledge her highnes to be the only supreme gouernour in al spiritual or ecclesia∣stical things or causes. If this be true that you haue said, it is manifest by your ovvn cōfession, that I declared her maisties meaning in that Othe, to be none othervvise than the expresse vvords are, as they lye verbatim. For vvhen I shovve her meaning to be, that ye should acknovvledge in her highnes, the only supremacy, I do declare plainly, that she meaneth to exclude,* 1.169 al other men frō hauīg any supremacy: for this exclusiue only, cā not haue any other sense or meaning. And vvhā I add this supremacy to be in al spiritual causes or things, I shevve an vniuersal cōprehension to be meant vvithout exception. For if ye * 1.170 except or take avvay any thing, it is not al. And you yourself tooke my mea¦ning to be thus. For ye chalēge me in your second chefe point, and cal for profe hereof at my hand, vvhich ye vvould not do, if it vvere not mine assertion and meaning. For vvhy should I be driuē to proue that vvhich I affirme not, or meant not. Besides these in your vvhole trauaile folovving, ye labour to im∣proue this (as you saie) mine assertion, to vvit, that al spiritual iurisdiction dependeth vpon the positiue lavv of Princes: If this be mine assertion, as ye af∣firme it is, and therfore bend al your force to improue it, ye vvittnes vvith me (.560.)* 1.171 against your selfe, that I declared her maiesties meanīg, vvas to take neither more nor lesse authoritie, and iurisdictiō, vnto her selfe, than king Hē∣rie and King Edvvarde had, for they had no more thā al. And if her Maiestie take any lesse, she hath not al. Touching therefore these false, feined, and slan∣derous

resolutions, as they are by you moste vntruly forged: euen so, vvhether this bee likely, that in a yeres space vvel nigh, I vvould not in all our daily cōference, make (.561.)* 1.172 one reason or argumēt, out of the Scriptures or other authority, in the maintenaunce of mine assertion: and to resolue you in the same, I referre to the iudgemēt of all the Papistes in the Realme, that knovv both me and you. Againe, though ye doe denie that I so did, and therefore do report none, there bee many both vvorshipful ād of good credit, yea and some of your ovvn deer friendes also, that are vvitnesses of our talke, and can tell vvhat reasons I haue made vnto you, bothe out of the Scriptures, and other authorities and proofes out of the Churche histories, suche as ye coulde not auoide, but vvere forced to (.562.)* 1.173 yelde vnto. And vvhether I should so do•• or not, I might referre me vnto the testimonie of your ovvn mouthe, both thā and sithē spoken to diuerse, that can vvitnesse the same, that ye affirmed this (although vntrulie) that you neuer found anie, that so much ouerpressed you, as I did, vvhich your saing, although most vntrue, yet it shovveth, that somevvhat I saied to confirme mine assertion, and to confute yours.

The sixt Chapter, concerning the Resolutions that M. Horne gaue to M. Fekenham, to the .4. forenamed poyntes.

Stapleton.

THIS processe following standeth vppon certain re∣solutions of M. Hornes, as M. Fekēhā saieth. But M. Horne denieth thē. And therefore being quaestio facti as they cal yt, and the doubte restinge vpon priuate talke, that passed betwene them: I cā geue no certaine iudgmēt: but must referre yt, to the discrete consideratiō of the in∣differēt reader. Yet so muche as I know, I wil say, and that is, that I vnderstande by suche as haue had at seueral times cōmunicatiō with the sayde M. Fekenhā, and emong other thinges, of this conference, heard M. Fekenhā say, that tou∣ching theis resolutions, he hath thē of M. Daniel, thē secre∣tary to M. Horne, his hand writing, redie to be shewed at all tymes. If yt be so, yt is likely, that M. Daniel can and wil

testifie the truth, in case he shoulde be required: of whose hand writing M Fekenhā saieth he hath also certaine other thinges copied out. But yet because, the euent of things to come are vncertaine, let vs imagine an vnlikely case, that is, that M. Daniel wil deny these forsaied writings to be of his hād: and that thē M. Horne will much more sharply and vehemētly crie out against these resolutions, then he doth now, that they are none of his, but lyke to him that forged them, false, feyned and maliciouse, with much other like mat∣ter that he laieth forth for his defence nowe. Suerly then though M. Fekenham were lyke to haue therbye no great preiudice in the principal matter, (for whether these reso∣lutions be true or false, the principal point is neither great∣ly bettered, nor much hindred by them) yet should M. Fe∣kenhā perchaunce greatly impayre his honesty and good name therby. Let vs thē as I said, thinck vpō the worst, and whether that M. Fekenham as he hath, (as ye haue heard,) much good defence for the principall pointe, so he may in this distresse, fynde any good reliefe, for the defending and sauing vpright of his honesty. Ye wil perchaūce good rea∣der now thinck, that M. Fekenhā is in a very hard ād strayt case: and that yt were a great difficulty to find any apparāt or honest help for him. And yet for al this ther is good and great helpe at hāde. For I wil be so bolde my self for ones, to take vppō my self to make a sufficient proufe, that these resolutions are not M. Fekenhams, but M. Hornes owne. And yf his secretary will not serue, I wil bring forth one other witnes that shalbe somwhat nerer him, and that M. Horne can not, nor shall, for all the shiftes that euer he shall make, refuse: and that is Mayster Horne him selfe, and no worse man. For thoughe I be not very priuie and

certaine what passed betwixt M. Horne and M. Fekēham at Waltham: yet of the contentes of this his printed an∣swere to M Fekenham I am assured, and so consequentlie that these are his resolutions, confessed more then ones or twise, by his owne mowthe and penne.

Consider therfore good reader, the state of the question touching theis resolutions. Is yt any other, then that as M. Fekenham auowcheth, M. Horne tolde him, for a resolute answere, that the Quenes Mai. meaning in the othe is farre otherwise, then the expresse wordes are in the statute, as they lie verbatim? And that thinges are therefore with some gen∣tle vnderstanding to be interpreted, and mollified? And ther∣fore, that thoughe the wordes of the statute be general and pre∣cise, that she onely is the supreame gouernour of the realme aswell in all spiritual or ecclesiasticall thinges or causes, as tem∣porall: Yet in no wise the meaning is that the kinges or Que∣nes may challēge authority or power of ministerie of diuine of∣fices, as to preache the worde of God, to minister Sacramētes, to excommunicate, to bynde or lose? To this effect come M. Hornes resolutions in the interpretatiō of the Othe, made by him at M. Feckenhams request as M. Fekenham saieth. But M. Horne doth flatly denie, that euer he made anie suche moderation or mollification, and laieth forth manie reasons to perswade the Reader, that M. Fekenham hath slaundered him. He saieth the right sense of the othe, is none other then yt is plainely set forth. he saith: that the supremacie is onely in the Quenes highnes: for this exclusiue (onely) cā not haue any other sense, or meaning. He saith moreouer, when I adde this supreamacie to be in all spiritual causes or thinges, I shewe an vniuersal comprehension to be meante withowt ex∣ception, for yf ye excepte or take away any thinge, yt is not all.

Are not theis your owne words M. Horne? do not then so generall and peremptory wordes of the statute, especially your precise exposition adioyned thervnto, expresly geue vnto the Quenes Mai. not only a simple and parted autho∣rity, but the cheifest, the principaleste, and a general or vni∣uersal authority in al thinges and causes whatsoeuer, as to preach, to minister the sacraments, and to lose and bynde, aswell as in other matters? Is it not euident, that theis are things spiritual and ecclesiastical? Do ye not attribute with∣out exception, as we haue declared, by your owne words the supremacy to the Quene in al causes and thinges spiri∣tuall? How then can it be possible, but that by a necessary consequent, ye doe also attribute, to her the supremacy in the causes Ecclesiastical before rehersed? And think yowe then M. Horne, that M. Fekenhā and his fellowes may take the othe with sauf conscience? And think you, that though the pope had no authority in the realme, the Quenes Mai. might haue so large and ample authority, the holy scripture being so playn to the contrary? Is it not likely therfore, that in your conference with M. Fekenham, ye did forsee this mischief, and therfor (though ye deny it here so stifly) that ye gaue him in dede such resolutions as be here specified? Suerly it is a thīg most probable. For ye make the very same resolutions to hym euen in this your answere also. For doe ye not expressely say a fewe leaues before,* 1.174 that princes neither do, nor may claime to preache the word of God, to mi∣nister the Sacramentes, or to bynde and lose? Do ye not say,* 1.175 that this is a spirituall gouernement and rule, belonging onely to the bishops and Church rulers? Do ye not confesse within 4. leaues followinge the lyke? And that Bisshoppes haue the spirituall Iurisdistion ouer theire flocke, by the expresse

worde of God: and that thereby Princes haue not all maner of spiritual gouerment? Is not this agreable to the resolutiōs that M. Fekenham saith he receyued at your handes? Again M. Fenkenham addeth, that in your said resolutions, ye saye that the authority to excommunicate is not properly per∣teyning to Princes, but apperteyneth to the whole cōgre∣gation aswell as to them.* 1.176 Doe ye not confesse, I pray you, the same twise in your answere immediatly following after this? Why say you then, that these resolutiōs are feyned by M. Fekenham? Why should any man thinke that M. Fekē∣ham should falsly charge you with these resolutiōs in priuat conference, that your self in your own book, doe so plain∣ly and openly auouche? Why should not men thinke also such other things as ye here charge M. Fekenham withall to be vntrue, seing that ye doe so falsly accuse M. Feken. for framing resolutions, in your name, that are your own in ve∣ry dede? Or why should any man trust you in these greate and weighty matters, which ye hādle, that ye speake, ye cā not tel what, bursting out into such open and fowle con∣tradictions, as yt would astone any wise man to consider them:* 1.177 attributing to the Quenes Maie. the supremacy in al spiritual causes or things without exception, and yet your self, excepting diuerse things spiritual, and geuing the supre∣macy of them to the cleargy? I woulde fayne know of you that so lately ruffled so freshly with your oppositiō contra∣ry, relatyue, priuatiue, and disparatyue, and with your pro∣positions contrary, subcontrary, subalterne and cōtradicto∣ry: yf a man man may fynd a more fowle contradiction thē this I now laye before you out of your own booke.

You say first fol. 104. b. in fine.

When I adde this supremacy to be in all spiritual causes, or

things, I shewe an vniuersall comprehensiō without exception For yf ye except or take away any thing it is not all.

Hereof, ariseth this vniuersal affirmatiue.

Al spiritual causes without exceptiō are vnder the supreme Gouuerment of Princes.

Item you say: fol 96. b.

To feede the Church with Gods worde, to minister Christes Sacramētes, and to bind and lose (fol. 97. a.) Kings, Queenes, ād Princes may not, neither doe clayme or take vpon thē, this kind of spiritual gouernement, and rule, or any part thereof &c.

Hereof ariseth this particular negatiue.

Some spiritual causes are not vnder the Supreme Gouerne∣ment of Princes.

Now let vs cōsider, in what kind of opposition, these your two propositions do repugne. Thus stande the oppo∣sitions.

All spirituall causes without exceptiō are vnder the Supreme Gouernemēt of Prī∣ces.	Contrary.	No spiritual causes at all are vnder the Su∣preme gouerment of Princes.
Subal∣terne.	CONTRA∣DICTORY. CONTRADICTORY.	Subal∣terne.
Some spiritual causes are vnder the Su∣preme gouerment of Princes.	Subcontrary.	Some spiritual causes are not vnder the su∣preme gouernement of Princes.

By this it appereth, that your two propositions do stāde in the extremest kind of al oppositions: which is: Contradiction.

And though this be a poore sely, and an insufficient shifte, to make such resolutions, yet is it the beste ye may nowe fynde to qualifie and mitigate the general words of the sta∣tute. Which in dede are so general and peremptorie, that they may in no wise be borne without some qualification. Which is nowe so notoriouse, that there is a qualification made in the Quenes Maie. iniunctions, that men should not take the general clause so largely, as to collect thereby, that the Kings or Quenes of our realm may challēge authority ād power of ministerie in the diuine offices in the Church. Which doth agree with your resolutions: and therefore there is no cause in the worlde, why ye should deny them to be yours, and say that they be falsly and slaunderouslye fayned vpō you by M. Fekēhā: vttering his owne peuish ca∣uillatiōs, as ye say vnder the name of your resolutiōs. Nowe though this be a necessary interpretatiō and moderatiō, yet this doth not take away the scruple that remaineth, staying M. Fekenhā and other to, in taking the said othe: for that this interpretatiō,* 1.178 is not made by acte of parliament, as the statute was. Neither doth the Acte or Statute referre it self to any such Iniunctions to be made, for the qualificatiō or restrayning of any thinge in the Acte or in any braunche thereof cōtayned, no more then it doth to M. Horns book. Neither hath any Iniūction by the lawe of our Realme any force to restrain, weakē or mollifie the rigour or generality of an Acte of parliamēt. And in case it had, yet ther remain many other as great scruples. Namely, that swearing to all causes, the prīcipal causes are excepted, and so he that swea∣reth forsweareth, and beside, that al ecclesiastical authori∣ty, aswel of the sea of Rome, as of al general coūcels, is eui∣dētly abolisshed, by the said statut. And in as much as gene∣ral

Coūcels, do beare ād represent the parson of the whole Church, wherof the Pope is head, no Christiā mā ought to receyue such othe, imploying the denial of the authority of the Pope the head, and of the whole body of the Churche beside.

The .162. Diuision. pag. 104. b.

M. Fekenham.

Hereunto I did make this obiection following. These woordes of the first part of the othe, I.A.B. doe vtterly te∣stifie and declare (in my conscience) that the Q. Highnes is the only supreme gouernour of this Realme, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiasticall thinges or causes, as Tem∣poral (besides the particulars expressed in your L. inter∣pretation made thereof) they doe by expresse woordes of the acte geue vnto the Queenes highnes, al maner of iuris∣dictions, priuileges, and preeminences in any wise tou∣chinge and concerninge any Spirituall or Ecclesiasti∣call iurisdiction within the Realme, with an expresse debarre, and flat denial made of al Spiritual iurisdiction vnto the Bisshops therof, to be exercised ouer their flocks and cures, without her highnes Special commission to be graunted thereunto:* 1.179 They hauing by the expresse worde of God, commission of Spiritual gouernement ouer them. Commission to lose and bind their sinnes. Commission to shut and open the gates of heauen to them. Commission to geue vnto them the holy ghost by the imposition of their handes. And they hauing by the expresse woorde of God such a daungerous cure and charge ouer their soules, that

God hath threatned to require the bloud of such as shall perishe at their handes.* 1.180 Notwithstanding, these and ma∣ny such other like cōmissions graunted vnto them for the more better discharge of their cure, and that by the mouth of God thei may not exercise any iurisdictiō ouer thē, they may not visit thē, they may not reforme thē, they may not order nor correct them, without a further cōmission frō y^e Q. hignes. Suerly my good L. these thinges are so straūge vnto me, and so contrary to al that I haue rede, that I am not hable to satisfie my consciēce therin. Your L. aunswer vvas, that for as much as al Spiritual iurisdictiō, and au∣thority to make Lawes and to iudge the people in courtes Ecclesiastical, to visit thē, to reforme thē, to order ād cor∣rect thē, doth depēd only vpō the positiue Lawes of Kings and Princes, ād not vpō the Law of God, therfore neither did the Apostles of Christ, neither the Bishops and their successours may exercise any iurisdictiō vpō the people of God, iudge thē, visit thē, refourme, order ād correct them without authority and cōmissiō of the King and Prince.

M. Horne.

It is very true, that after ye had quarelled muche in sondry thinges tou∣ching vvoordes and termes expressed in the Act of Parliament, and in the in∣terpretation of the Othe: Yee did neuerthelesse finally agree in the vvhole matter thereof, finding onely doubt in one point of mine assertiō, namely tou∣ching iurisdiction Spirituall or Ecclesiastical, al vvhich you affirmed, contra∣ry to mine assertion, to be committed by Christe to Bishops and priestes, as p••oprely apperteyning to their office and calling vvithout further commission or authority from Princes or any other povver. The distinction that I made

of Ecclesiastical iurisdiction, I vvil first repete, and than put mine ansvveare to your argumentes. Spiritual Iurisdiction is diuided into tvvo sortes,* 1.181 the one is called Cohibytiue, the other not Cohibityue. That vvhich is called not Cohibityue, is that iurisdiction or povver that is exercised and vvoorketh in the invvarde and (.563.)* 1.182 secrete courte of consciēce: that is (.564.)* 1.183 the prea∣chinge of the Ghospell, ministration of the Sacramētes, and the ab∣soluing and reteininge of sinnes by the vvoorde of God in the pub∣lique mynistery. This therfore they call not Cohibityue, bicause in the Court of conscience, no man is bound or lovvsed vnvvillingly or against his vvill. To exercise this kind of Iurisdictiō, neither Kinges nor ciuill Magistrates, neither any other persone may challendge or take vppon him, onlesse he be lavvfully called thereunto. Iurisdi∣ction Cohibityue hath (.565.)* 1.184 tvvo partes, the one consisteth in the exercise of excommunication, and circumstaunces thereunto requi∣red by Christes institution: the vvhich povver or Iurisdiction belon∣geth to the Church onely, and (.566.)* 1.185 not to the Prince, Bishoppe or Priest: for no man hath authority to excommunicate, but onely the Churche, and those vvho receiue authority therevnto by com∣mission from the Church. The other kinde of Cohibitiue Iurisdi∣ction is a povver or authority, that consisteth and is exercised, in foro causarum, in the courte of causes, and apperteineth ad externum & publicum forum, to the externall and publike Courte, and is defined to be, saith Antonius, an au∣thority or povver to declare the Lavv, geue sentence and to iudge in all controuersies (pertayninge to the Courte) vvhat is euery mans righte, and in summe, to doo those thinges, that iustice dooth require accordinge to the Lavves. Ioannes Quintinus defineth Iurisdiction, to the same effect, but openeth the nature therof more plainely, saying, Iurisdictiō is an office and authority, to declare the Law, that is, to admynister iustice and equity, and to gouern the peo¦ple with right ād Lawes. whā I name an office (saith he) I meane that iurisdictiō hath in it selfe a necessity to declare the Lawe: for office is that which euery man is bound to doo: to declare the lawe, is, to exercise iudgementes, wherevppon commeth iurisdiction (be meaneth, that iurisdiction hath the name and is so cal∣led of exercising iudgementes) iudgementes are exercised onelye

of thē that haue iurisdictiō, that is, power to iudge. Iu∣risdiction consisteth only in the contentions or deba∣ting of matters in Courte or iudgements. This autho∣rity to iudge dooth discende nowe from the (.567.)* 1.186 Prince alone, in whome only is all power. By vertue of (.568.)* 1.187 this iurisdiction (saith Antonius) the Churche ministers accordinge to theire offices rightly enioy∣ned vnto them, may lawfully visite, enquire of mens manners, punishe the faulty, send foorth apparitours or sommoners, cyte the sturdy and stubborne, represse their malepartnes, call and sommon meete personnes to the Synode prouinciall or generall, confirme the matters decreed in the Synode or Coūcell (.569.)* 1.188 par∣done faultes, chaunge or mitigate the penaūce enioy∣ned for confessed faultes, condemne Heretiques and their writinges, examine all mens writinges who so euer, before they be set foorth or published, and after due examination, iudge whether they conteyne sounde or pe∣stilent doctrin, ordeine Decrees, Lawes, ceremonies and rytes, constitute Bisshoppes and other Church ministers, also depose degrade, make them irreguler and vnhable to haue holy or∣ders, determine illegitimation in personnes for maryage, be∣stowe Ecclesiasticall benefices, and exact tythes and annates. These and many other thinges may be lavvfully doone by those that haue the povver of this Cohybitiue Iurisdiction, which is not (.saith he.) properly signified by the name of the keyes: for although it may be na∣med (in some respect) a Church key: yet it differeth very much from the keyes of the first Courte, that is, of the Courte of Con∣science. For the vse of those keyes, that are occupied in the Courte of conscience, belongeth onely to the Euangelicall Priestes. But this Iurisdiction may lawfully be exercised of those that are not ministers of the woorde and Sacramentes, and are not Priestes. As the tvvo former partes of Ecclesiastical iurisdi∣ction haue their vertue, povver, and institution of Christe immediatly, euen so this third part, vvhich is saied to consist in foro causarum, vvith those

things vvhich may be vsed or exercised by vertu thereof, doth depende vpon the (.570.)* 1.189 positiue Lavves of Christian Magistrats, or vvhere, such vvan∣teth, vpō the positiue rules and orders of that Church, vvhere such orders must be practised, and not immediatly vpon the Lavve of God.

The .7. Chapter. Howe M. Horne restraineth the Othe to one kinde of iurisdiction, thereby to auoide M. Fekenhams vnuincible Argument ta∣ken out of Gods woorde.

Stapleton.

AMonge other obiections that M. Fekenham made a∣gainst the supremacy in the conference at Waltham, this was one. That Bisshops had their warrante and commission for their exercise of their spiritual function and office by the expresse woorde of God: therefore he could not with quiet conscience allowe the othe, that geueth the Prince supremacy in all causes spiritual, with al priuileges, and preheminences in any wise touching any spirituall iu∣risdiction. He misliketh,* 1.190 that Bisshops hauing such commis∣sion by Gods worde, may not visite and reforme their cu∣res without a further cōmissiō from the Queenes highnes. M. Horne thinketh to wipe al this away with a distinction borowed, as he saith, of one Ioānes Antonius Delphinus. If any Catholik (good reader) should haue brought a testimo∣ny out of this Author against M. Horne, yt should haue ben with great contempte refused and reiected by and by. But now seing M. Horne himself hath authorised him: I trust he wil allowe him to be alleaged for our side also. And then shall M. Horne take small cōfort of any distinction, to be found in him: being one that auoucheth the popes suprema∣cy, as much as any man, yea aboue al generall Councelles.

Yet M. Horne thinketh so to bewytche his reader, as yt were with certayne magical incantations, that he shoulde beleue this Anthony to be of his opinion. We wil therfore for the better disclosing of M. Hornes iuggling, gather so much out of Anthonius, as we must necessarily do, for the illustratiō of this matter.* 1.191 This Anthonius diuideth (as other scholemen doe) al authority Ecclesiastical, into the power of order, and into the power of iurisdictiō. The first power as he declareth, doth reste in the interpreting of the sacred Scripture, in the consecrating of the body and bloudde of Christ, in ministring of Sacraments, in geuing holy orders, and beside other things in coupling of parsons together by mariage sacramētally. The power of iurisdictiō he defineth as M. Morn doth, and doth diuide it into Cohibityue, ād Not Cohibityue: as M. Horn doth. But for the residewe, M. Horn plaieth the Medea, as he did before with Quintin{us}. And be∣sides maketh such expositions, as neither his authour hath, nor otherwise are true. And as skilful a Logician as he pre∣tendeth him self: he neither followeth the order of his au∣thor, nor yet the true order and trade of the rules of Logik: that is, first to define, and thē to diuide. But peruerteth and confoundeth, aswel the order as the truth of al things. Wel we wil walke also a litle disorderly, to trace M. Horn in his own steppes.* 1.192 The iurisdistion not cohibityue (saith M. Horn) is that iurisdiction or power, that is exercised, and worketh in the inward and secrete court of consciēce,* 1.193 that is, the preaching of the Ghospel, ministratiō of the Sacraments, and the absoluing or reteyning of syns by the word of God in the publique ministery. This sayth M. Horn,* 1.194 but not his authour: who referreth to the not cohibityue Iurisdiction, only absolutiō in the secret Court of conscience. Who saith also, that preaching and ex∣pounding

of holy scripture, with the ministratiō of sacraments is no part of iurisdictiō ecclesiastical, but belōgeth to the keies of order. Neither doth your authour call preaching and mini∣string of Sacramens, the secret cowrt of conscience, nor he cā iustly do it: being a thing openly done, sene, and hearde:* 1.195 but he so calleth priuate confession only (because it is done priuatly and secretly, betwene the party and the confes∣sor). And this no man doth vnwillingly: for though a man may by commaundement of his bishop be al∣lotted to a certayne parish and curate: yet vnlesse he do submitte him self to his parrochial priest, and open vnto him his synnes, he can neuer be losed by him. To confesse the which priuy and secrete faults he can not be forced, but by his owne conscience. And vnlesse he cōfesse thē, he can not be absolued. To this cōfession then it appertayneth, that is sayd: no mā is bownd or losed vnwillingly (which you for the tēder loue ye beare to priuat confession do altogether dissemble) and not to preaching or ministring of Sacramēts, as ye seeme to say. Which preaching and ministring of Sacraments doe not appertayne to the, not cohibityue iurisdiction, as abso∣lutiō doth, but to the power or kaye of order, which (pro∣perly to speak) is no Iurisdictiō at al. The which as M. Horn doth confound: so doth he imagine of his owne fantasticall braine, that the iurisdiction cohibitiue hath two parts: the one standing in excommunicatiō, belonging neither to king, nor bi∣shoppe, but to such as haue commission from the Church: the other in hearing of causes in the external and publyke cowrte. All this is but an heape of follies and lies. For first, his Au∣thour, doth not so diuide cohibityue iurisdiction: as yt doth euidently appeare in hym, and we shall anon more plainly open it. Againe is not excommunication geuen and

pronounced in publike and external cowrt vppon the hea∣ring of causes there? Why do ye then seuer, and dismember excommunication from the hearing of causes ecclesiastical? Now that excommunication should neither properly ap∣perteine to the prince, nor to bishops, but to the whole Church and congregation, is a fonde, folish and frantyk ima∣gination of M. Horne, as euen also his Author Antonius in this very booke largely proueth.* 1.196 And as it is not farre from heresy: so perchaunce it is not farre from a premunire.

What meane you Maister Horne by this Churche? The whole Churche can not assemble together. And if you meane a generall councell, whiche in dede representeth the whole Churche: when shall we haue any man ex∣communicated? For of suche councells very fewe, syth the Christiā fayth was first receaued, haue bene assembled. And yet as fewe as they are, diuerse of them haue alredy excōmunicated such heresies as ye mainteyn. Yf ye meane of the particular Church where the party shall be denoun∣ced excommunicate, then must we haue both men, womē, and children solemply summoned to assemble when any excommunication is made. For they be aswel parts of the Church,* 1.197 as the wisest and the eldest parson of the parrishe. And as euery part of your answere in this point imployeth a great folly: so the greatest of all is, to see yowe after this sort to handle your matters, that ye haue now by this your wise reason frustrated and made voyde al the excommuni∣cations, that haue bene made any day this .8. yeares, and more either by your selfe, yowre officers, or by the arches, or any other Ecclesiasticall cowrte in Englande. And nowe may the poore honeste and catholyke woman of Winchester, that vppon false excommunication (if your

owne doctrine be true) hath bene kepte so many yeares in the Marshalsea, goe home and serue yowe with a write vppon an action of false inprisonment: either else shewe vs good M. Horne your commission, to excommunicate, that you haue receiued from the Church or congregation. Commission ye haue none from the Quenes highnes: (for as you say, she hath no such power her self) from the con∣gregation you haue none: (from the which two you deriue all cohibityue iurisdiction) and from the Pope, ye neither haue, nor wil haue any. From whence fetche ye then your cohibityue iurisdiction to excommunicate? Now as I sayd take ye hede, leaste to your greate folly be annexed also a daungerouse premunire.

As for M. Fekenham, if he deny this and other Ecclesia∣stical iurisdiction to depende vppon the prince onely, he doth constantly, and agreably to him self, and to a catholike mā: but you neither agree with the catholik, nor with your statute Law, nor with your owne self. The catholiks say, that this iurisdictiō cometh not originally from the prince, but being in the Church, when fewe or no princes were christened: the princes when they first receiued the fayth, finding this iurisdiction in the Church, so lefte yt, and did rather encrease and amplify it, thē in any part diminish the same. The statute sayth, that the prince is supreame head in al causes ecclesiastical: by the statute also all iurisdictiō ec∣clesiastical is vnited and annexed to the crowne of the re∣alm. Ye say,* 1.198 the statute must be takē as the words lye Verba∣tim, without any exception. What then in the worlde, may be thought more contrarie or repugnante, either to the wordes of the statute or your own, then when ye say. For Nomā hath Authoritie to excommunicat but onely the Church?

Which is to say: This power of excommunication belongeth to the Church only, and not to the Prince, adding also, as a rea∣son: the prince hath no authority to excommunicate? Is not this also a manifest derogatiō and impayring of the pre∣rogatiue royal touching matters Ecclesiastical, to imbarre the Prince al authority of excommunication? May not M. Fekenham here returne wel vpon you, your own wordes? What sauftie meane ye to her person,* 1.199 when ye bereue the same, of a principall parte of her royal power? What quietnes s••ke you to her parson, when ye goe aboute to bring the subiectes to a misliking of her royall power: which is a preparation of rebel∣lion against her parson? Nowe what cosonage this opinion, yf ye obstinately mainteyne it, hath with heresie, the holy scripture may witnesse.* 1.200 What commission had S. Paule of the Churche,* 1.201 when he excommunicated the fowle forni∣catour at Corinthe? What is the rodde that he threatneth the Corinthians withal,* 1.202 but this excōmunication? By what commission of the Church did he either excommunicate Himeneus, and Alexander, or denounce Anathema to him that loued not our Lord Iesus Christ? What commissiō had S. Peter,* 1.203 when Ananias and Saphira by him excommunica∣ted died forthwith? What commissiō had al the Bishops sy∣thens, namely Innocentius the Pope, that excommunicated themperour Arcadius? And S. Ambrose that excommunica∣ted the Emperor Theodosius? with a thowsand other, that denounced excommunication without any such false ima∣gined commission?

After your diuisiō, fantastically by you framed, ye come to the definitiō of Cohibitiue iurisdictiō: wherin ye do not so much misse of your authors words, as of his opē meanīg, comprehending vnder this general definition aswell excō∣munication,

as any other matter. Neither are you contente to tel vs Delphinus definition, but of your large liberalitye, you adde, an other neadlesse out of Quintinus: but so, that after your wont, ye infarse of your own, that all authoritye to iudge discēdeth from the prince alone. Which thing Quin∣tinus saith not of Ecclesiastical, but of temporal iurisdictiō, as we haue declared before. And therefore, when ye infer by vertue of this iurisdiction, saith Anthonius,* 1.204 the Church mi∣nisters, &c. meanīg by the iurisdictiō cōming frō the Prince only, ye lewdly lie, aswel vpō Anthonius, as Quintinus. For neither of them saith so, but both the quite cōtrary. Wher∣of doth follow, that al that, which ye reherse immediatlie as out of Quitinus nothing furthereth your pretensed su∣premacy. And in case yt did, as ye haue hitherto playde the peuishe and theuishe Cacus with your authours, to blemish the Popes:* 1.205 so now play you the like pageant to ble∣mish the Prīces iurisdictiō. For in the midle of your own allegatiō, ye haue pared away certain words, touching the foresaid excōmunication. In your au∣thor M. Horn after thefe words, to confirme matters determined, in the synod or councel, followeth, to ex∣cōmunicat, and to reconcile to the Church excōmunicat parsons duely repenting, to reserue cases, and to release cases reserued, to geue pardōs, to chaūge and mitigate, ād so forth, as in your allegatiō is cōtained. After this ye say, that this cohibitiue iurisdictiō may be exer∣cised by such as are no priests. I graūt you: but what is that for your purpose? For as your Authour sayeth so, euen so he sayeth, that at the leaste he muste haue the clericall tonsure or crowne, without the which, though he were a religiouse professed man, he could not exercise

this iurisdiction.* 1.206 And this is a good and a sufficient argument (if you will stande to your own Author Anthonius Delphinus) why neither you, nor your fellowes may lawfully practise any spirituall iuris∣diction. Farder the very next Chapter in this An∣tonius, of whom M. Horne hath alleaged so much, consisteth only in prouing, that this seconde Cohi∣bytiue Iurisdiction is in the Churche, by Gods or∣donaunce, not by the Commission of Emperours. And this he proueth expressely against such as M. Horne himselfe is. I meane against the scholers of Luther, against the present protestants of our daies: calling their opinion and M. Hornes assertion here: Impium errorem. A wicked errour. And thought Maister Horne to proue by the same Antonius in the next Chapter before, that the second Cohibytiue iurisdiction depended of Prin∣ces Commission, which in the Chapter following he doth of sette purpose confute? O what is Impudency, yf this be not?

M. Horne. The .163. Diuision. pag. 106.

You tooke vpon you to proue, that this (.571.)* 1.207 seconde kinde of Cohi∣bitiue Iurisdiction vvith the appurtenances thereof: as I haue rehersed, vvas appointed by the expresse vvord of God immediatlie to Bisshoppes and Priestes, vvithout further commission of Princes or other povver, vvhich I denied.

Novve lette vs consider the force of your proufes, and see hovve thei cō∣clude your cause. First yee saie, that the woordes of the first parte of the Othe, doe by expresse woordes of the Acte, geue vnto the Q. highnes all maner of iurisdictions, priuileges and pree∣minences in any wise touching and concerning any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical iurisdiction within the realme, with an ex∣presse debarre and flat denial made of al Spiritual iurisdiction

vnto the Bishops therof to be exercised ouer their flockes and cures without her highnes special commission, to be graunted therevnto: they hauing by the expresse word of God, commis∣sion of spiritual gouernment ouer them. Your (.572.)* 1.208 euil dealing vvith the vvordes of the Acte of the Othe, expresseth an vnkindely meaning to the Prince and the state: for that either the Acte or the Othe debarreth or denieth expressely or conuertly the to Bishops of this realme to exercise ouer theyr flockes and cures, vvithout her highnes special commission graunted thereto, any spirituall iuris∣diction assigned to a Bishoppe by the vvorde of God, is altogether (.573.)* 1.209 vntrue. The Statute geueth, or rather restoreth to the Prince Iurisdiction and Authority to enquire after vvhat sorte, the Ecclesiasticall state and personnes behaue them selues in their cu∣res and chardges, to refourme and corecte the disorders, negli∣gencies, and enormities ••isinge amongeste them to the hinde∣raunce of theyr Office in theyr cures and chardges, and in summe to order and prouide, that they doe execute theyr Office accor∣dinge to theyr calling in theyr cures and chardges. This is not to debarre or denie thē the exercise of theyr office vvithout a spe∣cial licēce. Neither do the (.574.)* 1.210 expresse vvords of the statut geue to the prince al manner of iurisdictiōs in such absolute vvise, as you report, in any wise, and any spiritual iurisdictiō within the realme. For these termes, all maner, in any wise, and any spiritual iurisdiction, vvhich you enforce so much, are not found in the gift or restitutition of spiritual iurisdictiō made by the acte vnto the Prince: but in that part vvhere the Acte geueth aftervvard povver and authority to the Prince to execute the Iurisdictiō, novv * 1.211 vnited and annexed to the Croune, by mete de∣legats, to be assigned, named▪ ād authorised by cōmissiō or letters pa¦tents vnder the great Seale of england. If ye vvil hereof infer, that bycause the princes haue by vertue of the acte, full povver and au∣thority to name, assigne, and authorise any person vvhom they shal thinke mete to exercise, vse, occupy, and exequute vnder thē, al ma∣ner of iurisdictions, priuileges and preheminences in any vvise, tou∣ching or concerning any spiritual or ecclesiastical iurisdictiō vvith∣in

theyr dominions or countries: Therfore al maner iurisdictiō is in the prince to be exercised, vsed, occupied, and executed by them, for othervvise you vvil say, the princes cannot geue ād cōmit to others, that vvhich they haue not receiued and is not in thē selues. Your argument is easely ansvvered in fevv vvords: it is a foule (.575.)* 1.212 Sophisticatiō, à secundū quid ad simpliciter. These vvords of the act, al maner, in any wise, are (.576.)* 1.213 restrained and boū∣ded, vvithin the limites of the gift: vvhere you of purpose, to beguile the simple vvithal, do let thē runne at large, and set them forth as mère and simple vniuersalles vvithout any limites at al. The Acte geueth or restoreth to the prince iurisdictions, priuileges, superiori∣ties, and preheminencies, spirituall and ecclesiastical, but it (.577.)* 1.214 addeth this limitation suche as by any spirituall or ecclesiasti∣cal povver or authority hath heretofore ben, or may laufully be ex∣ercised or vsed: And for that these vvords (as by any spiritual or ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore ben, or laufully be exercised and vsed) may be maliciously stret∣ched by avvrāgling Papist, and might seme to som, that haue good meaning also, to geue ouer large a scope, the mater or obiect vvher¦in, or vvhere about, those spiritual or ecclesiastical iurisdictiōs, pri∣uileges, superiorities, and preheminēces, are exercised, vsed and doe consist, is limited ād added in these (.578.)* 1.215 expresse vvords (for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persōs, and for reformatiō, order and correction of the same, and of al maner errors, heresies, schismes, abuses, offences, contē¦ptes, and enormities) vvhich vvords of limitatiō in the gift, as they geue not to the prince, the exercise of that iurisdiction that cō¦sisteth and vvorketh in the invvarde and secrete court of cōscience, by the preaching of the vvord and ministration of the Sacramentes, vvhich belōgeth only and alone to the Bishops, neither do they au∣thorise the prince to vse that iurisdiction that belongeth properly to the vvhole church: euē so do they geue rightly vnto the prince to ex∣ercise al maner iurisdictions priuileges, superiorities, and preemi∣nences in any vvise touching, and cōcerning any spiritual or ecclesia¦stical iurisdictiō, (.579.)* 1.216 cōteined vnder the second kind of cohibi∣tiue

iurisdictiō: for that may the Prince laufully exercise and vse, and doth not belōg vnto the Bisshops, othervvise then by (.580.)* 1.217 cō∣mission, and authority of positiue Lavves. This limitatiō of iurisdi∣ction set forth by expresse vvords in the Act, you knovv right vvel: ye vvere also at sundrie times put in mind thereof, and you vvere vvel assured, that your alleaging the vvords of the Act so darkly, cōfusedly, and (.581.)* 1.218 vntruly, could neuer further your cause amō∣gest the vvise: and yet vvould you nedes publissh them in this sort to the people, vvherby at the least, to make both the Prince and the lavv odious vnto the simple subiects. The Bisshops haue by the ex∣pres vvord of God, cōmission of spiritual gouernmet ouer their flock that is, to fede the flock of Christ, cōmitted to their charge, vvith Gods holy vvord, as I haue declared before. ••hey haue cōmission to absolue the faithfully penitēt, and to retaine or bind the impenitēt: that is, to (.582.)* 1.219 declare and assure both the one and the other, by the vvord of the Ghospel, of Gods iudgemēt tovvard thē. VVhat vvil ye infer herof? VVil ye cōclude therfore, they haue al maner of Spiri¦tual gouernmēt o•• ••urisdictiō ouer thē? Yōg Logiciās knovv this is an* 1.220 yl cōsequēt, that cōcludeth vpō one or diuers particulars affirma¦tiuely an vniuersall. Thus (.583.)* 1.221 ye argue, Bisshops by the expres vvord of God, haue cōmission to preach to their cures, to remit or re¦tein sinnes: Ergo, they haue cōmission by the expres vvord of God, to Sōmon Coūcels, or Synods general or prouincial, to visit: that is, iu∣dicially sitting in iudgemēt, to enquire of mēs maners, and forinsi∣cally to punissh or correct and to decide the cōtrouersies amōgst the people: touching contracts of matrimony, vvhordom tythes, sclaun∣ders, &c. And to ordeine Decrees, Lavves, Ceremonies, Rites, &c. If this conclusion follovv consequently vpon your antecedent, thē doth it ouerthrovv the doctrin of your Romissh diuinity, vvhich graūteth not to the Bisshops īmediatly from God this povver, vvithout a spe∣cial commission from the Pope, in vvhom only, as the * 1.222 Papists say, is fulnes of iurisdictiō and povver. But if this conclusion follovv not consequētly vpō the ātecedēt, as a mā more thē half blind may plainly see it doth not: thē haue ye concluded (584)* 1.223 nothīg at al by Christes diuinity, that may further the mat∣ter ye haue taken in hande to proue. You falsly reporte the scriptures, in this that you saie: the Bisshops haue cōmission by the expres vvord of God to geue vnto their flockes and cures, the holy Ghoste by imposition of their handes.

For the place vvhich ••e quote for that purpose, expresseth no such commission, neither (.585.)* 1.224 any other place of the holy scriptures. The Bishoppes haue so daungerous a cure and chardge ouer the soules committed vnto them, that God vvill require the bloud of those that perishe (thorough their negligence) at their handes: and therfore hath geuen them sufficient commission for the discharge of their cures. It vvere therefore an * 1.225 horrible absurdity, if they might not exercise any Iurisdiction ouer them: if they might not visit, refourme, order and correct them, by that commissiō vvith∣out a further commission from the Q. highnes. But doo yee not perceiue, vvhich the most simple may see, vvhereof also yee often vvere admonished by me, your vvarbling sleight, and Sophisticall quarellinge in equiuocation of vvordes and termes? As there are tvvo (.586.)* 1.226 sortes of Iurisdictiō vvhereof the one not Cohibitiue, properly belongeth to the Bishoppe vvhich he may and ought to exercise ouer his flocke, vvithout any other commission than of Christ: so to visit, refourme, order and correct, are of tvvo sortes: the one a † 1.227 Scripturely visitacion, reformation and correction by the onely vvorde of God, vvhich the Bishoppes may and ought to exercise in time, and out of time, vvith all possible vvatchefulnes and diligence vvithout any further† 1.228 commission. The other kinde of visitation, reformation and correction, is Forinsecall or court∣ly, vvhiche I comprehende vnder the seconde kinde of Cohibitiue Iurisdiction, and this the Bishoppe may not exercise vvithout a further commission from the Prince. VVerefore it is ouer foule an absurdity in you to inferre, that the Bisshops may not exercise any Iurisdictiō, visitaciō, reformatiō or correctiō, bicause they may not vse this Forinsecal, or courtly vvithout the Princes commission.

Stapleton.

M. Horne after that he hath bene so bolde with Delphi∣nus, to frame his argumentes and wreste then at his owne pleasure: he is as bold with M. Fekenhams arguments also. M. Feckenham argueth thus. Spiritual gouernment is geuē to Bishops by Gods speciall worde, namely to loose and

bynde, to shutte vppe heauen gates,* 1.229 and to geue the holie ghoste. Ergo the Prince is not the supreame gouernour in all causes spiritual according to the wordes of the statute: Ergo all maner spirituall iurisdictiō is not to be authorised of the Prince, as the Acte expressely and most generallie auoucheth: Ergo yt is not true, that they may not visite or reforme theire flocke withowt the Princes commission. This argumentes being good and sownd,* 1.230 M. Horne leapeth me in, and saieth: that M. Fekenham toke vppon him to proue the second kind of cohibitiue iurisdiction to be, by the expresse worde of God immediatly appointed to bishoppes and priestes, without further commission of Princes. And this argument he doth more solēly repete againe in the .2. leafe following and goeth about to soile yt, being his own, and not M. Fe∣kenhās argument. For thinke you M. Horne, that M. Fe∣kenham hath or will allowe your first and seconde cohi∣bitiue iurisdiction? His examples are of the power of order, or of the keies: and of that, that you cal the first Cohibitiue iurisdiction. Why then do you so falsly charge him, leauing out the first two, and the verie principall partes?* 1.231 Let vs nowe heare what ye say further to him.

You accuse his euill dealing with the words of the acte, expressīg an vnkindly meaning to the prince and the state. Yea say, that thoughe the statute doth geue, or rather restore to the Prince, all maner of iurisdictions, or preheminences towching any Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction: yet the wordes must not be taken so generallie, but must be referred and limited to, and with other wordes of the sayde statute, that is, for the visitation, reformation, and correction of the ecclesiasticall state, and of all maner of errours and heresies.

By the which wordes of limitation the Prince as you

inferre of it, is as well restrained from doing any thing in the publike ministerie, by preaching or ministring Sacraments: as from that iurisdiction that standeth in excommunication, and hath onelie thereby the second kinde of cohibitiue Iurisdiction. Surelie here is a marueilouse and a wōderfull interpretatiō. M. Horne vrgeth M. Fekenhā to swere, that he beleueth in conscience,* 1.232 that the Prince is Supreme Gouernour in all causes Ecclesiastical: He addeth as ye haue heard, that those wordes must be takē without limitatiō or exceptiō: and yet him selfe excepteth the chief things or causes ecclesiastical. Wherby a man may much better cōclude and swere to the cōtrary: that is, that the Prince is not Supreme Gouernour in al Spi∣ritual causes. Surelie to imagine, and to defende the Prince to be supreme ruler in al causes, ād yet to abridge his autho∣ritie in so many causes, is much like, as if one should say and affirme of some man, that he is a king: but yet he is able to cōmaund no man to prison, for any offence: he is a king, but if ther be any warre, he can cōmaund no man to serue him: he is a king, but yet if there be any businesse, stur, or disorder in the people, he neither can punish thē, nor make out any decree or proclamatiō against his rebels. Of the which pre∣misses (they being true) it wil follow, that in deede he is no king. But surely, M. Horne me thinke (as I haue said) that ye aduenture very far and daūgerously, whē in the other part touching iurisdiction, ye restraine and limit the statute that geueth the authorising of al maner of iurisdictiō to the Prince, yea ānexeth, and vniteth the same to the Croune: to the secōd cohibitiue ōly. And what kind of visitatiō or reformatiō shal the Prince make by his ecclesiastical authority, if you take away the authority to excōmunicat, which al ecclesiastical visiters haue, ād euer had: and which also expresly belōgeth

to the secōd kind of cohibitiue iurisdictiō which you make to depēd of only princes by your own author Antoni{us}, as I haue before shewed. Cōsider M. Horn whether M. Fekēhā may not iustly say to you, that you deal very yl with the words of the act, and you expres an vnkīdly meaning to the Prince ād the state: Wel: if there be no remedy, but that by your inter∣pretation directe contrary to all reason and the manifeste wordes of the statute, the statute it selfe may be so eluded: and that ye may by your owne absolute authority spoile your supreame head of one cheif pointe and power eccle∣siastical, yea of the very cohibitiue Iurisdictiō, which you woulde seme to graūte him with this your pretie and new∣ly coyned distinction, which prince like ye woulde haue to be as yt were good and currāt mony: I meane of your two kindes of cohibitiue iurisdiction, which I suppose shall nei∣ther be founde in any good Diuine, nor in any boke of the temporall lawe in all Englande, yet woulde I fayne heare from you of some good and conuenient proufe, whie the seconde cohibitiue, as ye call yt, remayneth in the prince onely, more then the first. Or why if that remaine, excom∣municatiō being a part thereof remaineth not in the Prince also? I would know farder whē euer this iurisdictiō was ta∣kē away frō the Prīces, that it must now be restored again. Verely that which they neuer had, could neuer be takē a∣way. And much lesse can it be restored thē, which by no right euer belonged to thē. For shew M. Horne, yf you can with al your study and cōferēce with your frendes but one exāple of any Catholik Prince, either in Englād, or in al the world beside, that gaue the bishops any cōmissiō, for the se∣cōd cohibitiue iurisdictiō: as ye call it specified in those ex∣āples that your self reherse out of Antonius. I wil geue you

one whole twelue moneths,* 1.233 M. Horne, to bring foorth but one such example. I neuer read, I neuer heard of any suche commission. Onely in the late daies of king Edward the sixt his time, I finde such commissions, by the whiche al Archbishops, Bis∣shops, and other Ecclesiastical persons did then ex∣ercise all their Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction. There I finde, though vntruely, that all iurisdiction as well Secular as Spirituall, sprang from the King as Su∣preme head of all men. By the said commission a∣mong other things the Bishops tooke their autho∣ritie, not only to heare Ecelesiastical causes iudici∣ally, but euen to geue holye orders also: as appea∣reth by the tenour of the same. They receiued also by vertue of the commission all manner of power Ecclesiastical: and al this no longer then during the Kings pleasure. And therefore within three mo∣neths afterward, all Bishops and Archbishops were inhibited to exercise any Ecclesiasticall iurisdictiō, vntil the visitation, appointed by the king were en∣ded. There was also an other inhibition made, that no Bishoppe nor anye other Ecclesiasticall person should preache any sermon, vntil such time as they were specially thereto licensed by the king. And haue you not read or heard, M. Horne, that in the second yeare of king Edwarde the .6. letters were sent from the L. Protectour to the Bishop of Win∣chester, D. Gardiner, commaunding him in the kings behalfe, and charging him by the authority of the same, to absteine in his sermon from treating of any matter in controuersy cōcerning the Sacramēt of the Aulter,

and the Masse, and only to bestowe his speache in the experte explication of the articles prescribed vnto him, &c?* 1.234 Knowe you not, that two yeres after that the said Bishop being ex∣amined before the kings Commissioners at Lambeth, the tenth article there layed against him was, that being by the King commaunded and inhibited to treate of any mater in con∣trouersie concerning the Masse, or the Sacrament of the Aulter, did contrary to the saied commaundement and inhibition de∣clare diuers his iudgementes and opinions in the same?* 1.235 And that in his final pretended depriuation, made at Lambeth the 14. of Februarie, this (as it is there called) disobedience against the kinges cōmaundement, is expressly layed against him? Did not the king here take vppon him the very firste cohibitiue iurisdiction, as you cal it? Dyd he not abridge Christes commission, geuen immediatly to Bishopes, and li∣mitte the exercise thereof to his owne pleasure and com∣maundement?

Againe were there not iniunctions geuen by the sayed king Edwarde, to the Bishope of London D. Bonner,* 1.236 with Articles thereto annexed for him to preache vpon? And dyd not his great examination and depriuation ensewe thereof? Looke in your felowe Foxe, and you shall finde the whole set out at large. If therefore by the Othe now tendred, the Queenes highnes meaning is, to take vpon her,* 1.237 so much and no more of spiritual authority and power, then king Henry and king Edwarde enioyed and did iustly claime, for they had no more thē all, which you auouche to be your constant assertion, and the true meaning of the Othe, see you not, that by the othe euen the Authoritie of preaching Gods word, which Au∣thority and commissiō Bishops haue immediatly from God, dependeth yet of a furder commission from the Prince,

which you cal an horrible absurditie? See you not also, that the Bishopes had al maner of ecclesiastical punishment ge∣uen them by the princes commission,* 1.238 without any suche commission made as you imagine touching excommuni∣cation?

Thus haue you taken awaye the very Scripturely visi∣tation, Reformation, and Correction, (as you call it) from the Bishoppes and from theyr commission geuen to them by the woorde of God, and haue made it to de∣pende vppon a further commission of the Queenes Hygh∣nes pleasure: For that by letters patentes shee maye and hath inhibited for a season the Bishoppes of her realme to preache the worde of God, as her brother kinge Edwarde before did. And this you call M. Horne, An horrible absur∣ditie, as it is in dede moste horrible: and yet such as you see by vertue of the Othe our Princes bothe may and haue practised.* 1.239 Woe to them that induced good Godly Princes therevnto. For in dede hereof hath proceded the whole alteration of religion in our country. And hereof it follo∣weth, that religion in our countrie shal neuer be setled, or of long continuaunce, excepte Princes alwaies of one minde and Iudgement doe Raygne. Hereof it followeth, that we shall neuer ioyne in Faithe and Doctrine with other christened Realmes and with the whole vniuersal Church except our happe be, to haue a prince so affected, as other Christen princes are. Hereof it followeth, that though our Prince be Catholike, yet thys Authorytie standinge, our Faythe is not Authorysed by Gods worde and the church, but by Gods woorde and the Prince, that ys, by Gods woorde so expounded and preached, as the prince shall commaunde and prescribe it.

Briefely hereof foloweth, that the faith of England is no faith at al builded vpon the authority of God and his Mini∣sters, who haue charge of our soules, but is an obediēce on∣ly of a temporal law, and an opinion chaungeable and alte∣rable according to the lawes of the Realme.

These are in dede moste horrible absurdities, and moste dyrecte againste the vnitie of the Churche, whiche aboue all thinges ought to be tendred, and without the whiche there is no saluation. This destroyeth the obedience of faithe, and setteth vp onely a philosophicall perswasion of matters of Religion. This cleane defaceth all true Religion, and induceth in place therof a ciuil policie. To cōclude, this maketh a plaine and directe waye to al heresies. For if euer (which God forbidde) any Prince of our land should be af∣fected to any heresie, as of Arrianisme, or any such like, the supreme Authority of the prince remaining as the Othe graunteth, and as king Edward practised, should not al the Bishops either be forced to preache that heresy, or to leese their bishopriks, other placed in their romes which to please the Prince, ād to climbe to hònor, would be quick enough to farder the procedings? Any man of mean cōsideration may see these inconueniences, and many moe then these, which of purpose I leaue to speake of. To returne there∣fore to you, M. Horne, whether you and your fellow Bis∣shops haue special cōmission from the Quenes Ma. for the exercise of your iurisdictiō, I know not: But I am most cre∣dibly informed ye haue none. And as for excōmunicatiō, ye wil haue none of her: neyther wil ye acknowlege any such authority in her. And therfore ye had nede to looke wel to your self, and what answere ye will make, if ye be ones cal∣led to an accompt, either for this kind of doctrine, so dero∣gatory to the statutes, and the Quenes M. prerogatiue, that

ye would seme to maintaine: either for the practise of your iurisdiction without any sufficient Commission. Remem∣ber now among other things,* 1.240 M. Horne, whether this dea∣ling be agreable to your Othe, by the which ye promised, that to your power ye would assist and defend al iurisdicti∣ons, priuilegies, preheminences, and authorities, graunted or belonging to the Quenes Highnes, her heires or succes∣sours: or vnited and annexed to the imperiall Crowne of the realme. Ye may thinke vpon this at your good leasure. Remember also how you wil stand to this your saying: that the expresse woordes of the Statute doe not geue to the Prince all maner of iurisdictions. The Acte saith so expresselie in these wordes. And that your Highnes, &c. shall haue ful po∣wer and authoritie by vertue of this Act, &c. to assigne, name, and authorise, when and as often as, &c. And for suche and so long time as it shal please your Highnes, &c. suche persons, &c. as your Maiestie &c. shal thinke meete to exercise, vse, occu∣pie, &c. all maner of iurisdictions, priuileges, and praeeminen∣ces, in any wise touching or concerning any Spirituall or Eccle∣siasticall iurisdiction within these your Realmes, &c. and to visite, refourme, redresse, order, correct, and amend all suche errours, heresies, schismes, abuses, offences, contempts, and enor∣mities whatsoeuer, which by any maner Spiritual or Ecclesia∣stical power, authoritie or iurisdiction, can or may lawfully be refourmed, ordered, redressed, &c. Here in these woordes you see, M. Horne: ful power and authoritie is geuen to the Prince, to authorise any man at his or her pleasure to exe∣cute or exercise AL manner of IVRISDICTIONS: in any wise concerning any SPIRITVAL IVRISDIC∣TION: Item to redresse and correct all enormities what∣soeuer, which by any maner Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power,

AVTHORITIE or iurisdiction, can or may lawfully be re∣dressed and corrected. Here, M. Horne, is no exception of cohibitiue, or not cohibitiue Iurisdiction. Dare you then to restraine the Act of Parliament, to the only second kind of Cohibitiue Iurisdiction, a kinde of Iurisdiction by your selfe inuented? But marke howe you haue confounded your selfe. You denie these generall tearmes to be found in the gift of Sp••ritual Iurisdiction made by the Act: But, you say, it is afterward found. And where afterward? Forsoth say you, In that part where the Act afterward geueth power to the Prince to execute the Iurisdiction, NOW VNITED and annexed to the CROWNE, by mete delegates to be assig∣ned, &c. Marke wel what you haue said. You auouch the same iurisdiction which is by the Prince to be assigned, and authorised in all maner, &c. as before you haue heard, the same so Generall and vniuersall Iurisdiction, I saye, you a∣uouche to be vnited and annexed to the Crowne. If that, so generall Iurisdiction (as hath ben saied) be vnited vnto the Crowne, whie denie you, that the expresse words of the Sta∣tute doe geue to the Prince all maner of Iurisdictions. Are you not contrary to your selfe? The Prince hath power to execute all maner Iurisdiction by meete delegates by him assigned by your owne confession, and the plaine woordes of the Act. The same Iurisdiction so by the Prince to be ex∣ecuted, is vnited to the Crowne, you say: Ergo all maner of Iurisdictions are vnited to the Crowne: you saye. It is vnited to the Crowne: Ergo it is geuen to the Prince. Thus by your owne wordes you are confounded, and pro∣ued vntruely and wrongfully to reproue M Fekenham for missereporting the Othe in that thing, which bothe the Te∣nour of the Othe hath, and your own confession agniseth.

You thinke this general gifte may be auoyded by the limi∣tation, that you say, is added. But you report the Othe vn∣truly. That limitation is not added to these general wordes: For it goeth before these general words in a former brāche of this Statute. And your selfe confesse, that these general wordes are sette after the gifte or restitutiō of spiritual Iu∣risdiction made to the Prince, in the which that limitation as you say, is foūde. And how cā thē, I pray you, that which wēt before, be a limitation of that which came after? Who seeth not your extreme foly herein, and the miserable shifts that you are driuen vnto?

Now, you cōfessing the same general and vniuersall Iu∣risdictiō of which by vertue of th'Acte, the Prince hath the assigning ād authorising, to be vnited to the crown, which is to be in the Prince, and reprouing M. Feckenham for so saying, doe find fault also with his reason, why he should so say, and do cal his reason or argumēt a foul sophisticatiō. His reason, as your self reporteth it, is this. Princes haue not thē selues al maner of ecclesiasticall Iurisdictiōs: ergo they can not geue and cōmit the same to others. That they haue not al maner of Iurisdictiōs your self denieth: for they haue saie you only the forinsecal and Courtly Iurisdiction, or as you call it the secōd cohibitiue Iurisdictiō: and not any spiritual Iurisdictiō touching the secret Courte of Cōscience. Thus the Antecedēt you graunt, being forced therto by the Scri∣ptures by M. Feckenhā alleaged. Why deny you then the Cōsequent? You pretend for your denial, a limitation to be made in the Acte, of those generall wordes, al maner, in any wise, and any spiritual Iurisdiction: but that is now found to be but a fable, by reason that this limitatiō goeth before in an other braunche of the Acte, and these generall wordes

do folow afterward, as your self also confesse. But to make a limitatiō, before the thing to be limited is spokē of, is agaīst al order and course of writing, or reason. Yet your vrge this to your Reader, againe and again: saying: that the matter or obiect wherin or wherabout these spiritual Iurisdictiōs (to be by the Prince assigned) are exercised, is limited ād added in these expresse wordes (for the visitation &c.) which wordes are not added to the general gifte of assigning and authori∣sing all maner &c. For they goe before that generall gifte, neither do or cā they limit that generality going (as I haue oft said) before it. I desire the Reader for better trial hereof to cōsider and peruse the Act it self. Thus thē this limitatiō that you pretēd being but a mere forged and fained matter, the argumēt of M. Feckenhā stādeth sure: and you your self worthy of smal thanke, euen at their hādes which deuised that braunche of the Acte, for restrayning and limiting the general power and Iurisdictiō geuē to the prince, to the on∣ly forinsecal and Courtly Iurisdictiō, which you cal the se∣cond kinde of cohibitiue Iurisdictiō. You see by that which hath bene saied, the Acte geueth to the prince al together without exception. This shifte therefore failing you, you frame to M. Fecknā such an argumēt, as he neuer made, but such as you haue in dede throughout your booke ful many made: I meane vpō one or diuers particulars to cōclud affirma∣tiuely an vniuersal: which you say, is an euil consequent. For what other haue al your proufes or cōclusiōs ben through out your booke hitherto, thē these? Suche a prince called a Councell: or inuestured Bishoppes, or deposed Bishoppes, or made constitutions ecclesiasticall: ergo such and suche a prince were the supreme Gouernours in al ecclesiastical causes: I say not, you haue proued they did so, absolutely by their own Prīcely authority: You haue missed in al your

proufes as well appereth to any indifferent Reader and peruser of bothe our writinges: But I saie, in case you had proued your Antecedēts good, was not this allwaies your Consequent? I say vpon one or diuers particulars to con∣clude affirmatiuely an vniuersal? For what one Emperour or Prince amonge so many, so longe a succession, and in so diuers countres, haue you brought forthe, by whose exam∣ple by sufficiente enumeration of all partes▪ you might lo∣giquely and reasonably cōclude the affirmatiue vniuersal, that is, the Supreme gouernement in al spiritual or ecclesiasti∣cal thinges or causes. You haue not M. Horne, brought any one suche. Shewe but one, and I will allowe you in all. And come you nowe to charge M. Fekenham with thys foule and euil consequent? What? Thought you so by pre∣uention to blame M. Fekenhā, that you might escape ther∣by the blame your selfe? or thought you we shoulde haue forgotten to charge you herewith, excepte your selfe by charging an other, had put vs in minde thereof? Vpon this imagined Conclusion of M. Feckenhams you induce a di∣lemma, that whether the Conclusion folow or not folow, yet he shal alwaies remayne in some absurdite. But we say, that as he neuer made that consequent, so also that it folo∣weth not. Then say you. If the Conclusion folowe not cōsequēt∣ly vpon the Antecedent▪ than haue ye concluded nothing at al by Christes diuinity, that may further the matter ye haue taken in hande to proue. To the which I answere: That M. Feckenham hereby fully cōcludeth his principall purpose.

For, Commission of Spiritual gouernement being geuen (as he reasoneth, and you expresly cōfesse) to Bishops im∣mediatly from God, by Christ him selfe true God, not on∣ly in some, but euen in the principall spirituall causes, as to

fede the Church with true doctrine, to preache the worde, to bind and loose, to minister the Sacraments, it foloweth euidētly, that the Prince is not the Supreme Gouernour in al Spiritual causes: And that the Acte hath wrongfully ge∣uen to the Prince the ful authorising for al maner of spiritual causes in any wise concerning any Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction to be vsed and exercised by persons, when and as often, and for such and so long time, as it shal please the Prince to authorise them: It foloweth, I saye, that the Acte hath wrongfully geuen al this to the Princes authorising, seeing that God him selfe hath already geauen it to the Apostles and their successours, Bishops and Priestes in his Churche, without any cōmission or authorisatiō for any prince of the earth whatsoeuer. God hath (your self say, M. Horn) geuē to the Bisshops sufficiēt cōmission for the discharge of their cures: It were therfore (you say) an horrible absurdity, if they might not exercise any iurisdictiō ouer thē, by that cōmissiō, without a furder cōmission frō the Quenes highnes. But bothe by the practise in king Edwardes daies (at what time by the Kings letters patēts, bishops had a special cōmissiō to minister the Sacraments, and to preach the word, frō the Prince, and at the Princes pleasure, as it hath before ben declared) ād also by the plaine Act in the Quenes M. daies now reigning, bi∣shops can not exercise, vse, or execute any Spiritual iurisdi∣ction, without the Authorising, naming, and assigning of the Prince, yea and that no oftener, nor no longer, then it shall please the Prince to Authorise them (so that beeing a Bishoppe to daye, to morowe (by the Acte) he shall be none, if it please the Prince to dissauthorise him, or dis∣charge him) Ergo, by Maister Hornes own confession and plaine constante assertion, bothe in King Edwardes dayes

and now in the Acte, an horrible absurdity, is committed. You haue saied M. Horne a great deale more against the Acte, then euer M. Feckenham saied. Beare therefore with him and vs I pray you, yf to auoide such an horrible absur∣dity, bothe he and we refuse the Othe of this acte. Some reason, I perceiue, M. Sampson and D. Humfrey of Oxford had, when they refused this othe, being tendred vnto them by a Commission. They saw it was in dede a most horrible absurdity, so to weakē Gods authority, that it must yet not of congruite, but of necessite and by force of lawe be bol∣stered as of it selfe insufficient, with the Princes authori∣sing and letters patents. The sawe it was a great impiety, that bishops and Pastours by Gods lawe ordayned to suche offices, should not oftener exercise their offices, nor no len∣ger remaine in the saied offices, then it should please the Prince for the time to Authorise them and allowe them. Therefore these men them selues, no doubte true subiectes to the Quenes highnes, and well willers to her Maiest. Person, refused yet this Othe, as is aboue saied.

But what a conclusion is this M. Horne, how fowle an absurdity is it, to take the Othe of supreme gouernemente in al spiritual thinges or causes, in which Othe also you say, nothing may be excepted:* 1.241 for if you except any, it is not al (these are your owne wordes) and yet to make nowe a limitatiō and to except so many and so principall causes ecclesiasti∣call, in the which (as you say also) the Prince hath no go∣uernement at all, but only the Bishops, as hauing sufficient commission herein from God him selfe? Whereas if there were in dede any limitation by the Acte expressed or intē∣ded, (as there is not in dede any at all in the Authorising of mete persons to execute all maner of spirituall Iurisdi∣ctions)

it were yet open and manifest periury to sweare to a supreme gouernement in all causes without exception. What yf you, and your felowes intende not, or meane not al maner spirituall causes? Can this excuse them which sweare to all, from manifest periury? How many haue re∣ceyued the Othe, which neuer vnderstode worde of any suche limitatiō? If you meane in dede a limitatiō M. Horne, procure thē that the limitation be put to the Othe expres∣ly, that men may sweare to no more then is intended. Els if you intangle mens soules in open periury, vnder a couert limitation, assure your selfe, you and al other the procurers hereof shal answer full derely to God for all the soules that hereby haue perished. And assure your self, that,* 1.242 as the holy ghost infallibly threatneth, he wil come as a quicke witnesse against al periured and forsworen persons. Neither yet doth the limitatiō, excuse thē frō periury, which sweare Princes to be supreme gouernors in some spirituall causes, who are in dede no gouernours at al in such causes, nor euer had by the lawe of God, any spiritual charge or Iurisdictiō cōmit∣ted vnto them. But yet if this limitation were annexed, the periury were the lesse, and the dealing were more playne, though not therfore good. In the meane while you which force men to sweare to al ecclesiastical causes, and yet will except so many ecclesiastical causes, how vnreasonably ād how absurdely do you write? But of these your contradi∣ctory assertions I haue before spoken.

If I should here aske M. Horne▪ what Authorite the par∣liament had, to geue to the Prince, all or any Iurisdiction at all in matters mere spiritual, that parliament especially consisting only of the lay, the bishops and the whole Con∣uocation withstanding that gifte with al their power, I be∣leue

it would trouble him or any wise man els to geue any good reason therefore, the obediēce of a Christē mā to the Catholike Church (which al Christians in their Crede doe professe) presupposed. If I should farder aske M. Horn again how he cā goe for a bishop, and write him selfe (as he dothe in his booke) the B. of Winchester, being called to that fun∣ctiō only by the letters patents of the Prince, without due Cōsecration,* 1.243 or imposition of handes by any Bishop or bis∣shops liuing, which impositiō of hādes S. Paule euidētly pra∣ctised vpō Timothe, ād the vniuersal Church hath alwaies vsed, as the only ād proper meanes to order a bishop of the Churche, I am wel assured, neither he nor al his fellowes, being all vnordered prelats shall euer be able to make any sufficient or reasonable answer, (answering as Christiā Ca¦tholike mē) whereby it may appeare, that they may goe for right bishops of Christes Church: but that thei must remain as they were before, or mere lay men, or simple priestes.

Last of al take you yourself in dede M. Horn for a bishop? If so, thē may you preache the word, minister the sacramēts, bind ād lose, vpō the cōmissiō geuē you by God in holy scri∣pture, without any furder cōmissiō of the prince. If you may so do, thē put the case, the Q. Mai. that now is, or any other king or Queene of England hereafter should forbid you to preach the word, to minister the sacraments, or to execute any other part of the bishoply functiō▪ and by cōmmissiō ap∣point some other to that functiō? Wil you obey, or wil you not? If yea, thē do you forsake your duty and charge cōmit∣ted vnto you by God. If not, thē by vertue of this Act, you incurre the penalty therof. To this questiō answer M. Horn if you be able: and make, if you cā, Christs cōmissiō, the holy Scriptures and this Act to agree both together, that the ke∣ping

of the one, import not the breach of thother. But this shal you neuer be able to do while you liue, stāding to that, which in this your booke you haue cōfessed. Thus you see euery way, how in your own sayings you are intrapped, o∣uertakē, and cōfounded. And so must it nedes fal out with e∣uery mā that with any truth or {pro}bability, laboreth to main∣tain an vntruth or absurdity. As for your forged and presūp∣tuous limitatiō vpō the words of th'Act, and abridgīg of the Q. Ma. autoriti therin expressed, I leaue that mater furder to be cōsidered by the graue wisdom of the most Honorables.

Here remain yet some vntruthes by you auouched, that would be cōfuted, which because the answer alredy wax∣eth prolixe and long, I wil but touch. The holy Gospel saith, whose syns ye retain shalbe retained: whose syns ye lose in earth, their syns shalbe loosed in heauē. Cōtrary to the plaine words of the gospel you wil haue no actual bindīg or losing by the priest in dede, but a declaratiō ād an assurāce, that they are lo∣sed, or boūd: cōtrary I say not only to the words of the gos∣pel, but also to the doctrin, ād practise of the vniuersal Chur∣ch: wher the priest hath euer said to the penitēt: Ego absoluo¦te &c. I absolue thee: ād saieth not, I declare and assure thee that thou art absolued. This is a plaine heresy,* 1.244 not much vn∣like to the Nouatiās, whō S. Ambrose cōfuteth: sauing that their heresy is not so large as is yours. For they, but in cer∣tain crimes denied power of losing in the church, referring that power in such cases ōly to God. You deny to be in the church any power at al, either of binding or of losing, refer∣ring al the power to God only, ād not cōsidering how God is to be praised, qui talē potestatē dedit hoīb. Who gaue such power to men.* 1.245 Which the cōmon Iewes had yet the grace to cōsider in the high Bishop ād chief priest, Christ Iesus our Sauiour.

An other of your hereticall vntruthes in this place also is, that you denie the sacramente of confirmation: and that the holie ghoste is not geuen by the imposition of the Bis∣shoppes hands.* 1.246 We reade in S Luke, that Christe at his as∣cension,* 1.247 promised the holy ghost to them, which was per∣formed vppon whitsonday.* 1.248 And what was that but their confirmation̄? We reade, that S. Paule after he had baptized certain parsons (in the which baptisme no doubte they re∣ceiued the holy ghoste) he put his handes vppon them, and they thereby receiued the holy ghoste. And this was their confirmation.* 1.249 The like is writen in the place here by M. Fe¦kenham alleaged, of the Apostles Peter and Iohn, that put theire handes vppon those that before were baptized, by Philip the Deacon, and they thervppon receiued the holy ghoste. The which did in the primitiue Churche worke in the Christians with inuisible grace and visible miracles, at the time of their confirmatiō: as yt now worketh by inui∣sible grace onely, with a strengthening and confirming of the ghostly and spiritual giftes before receiued:* 1.250 wherof the Sacrament hath his name. And therfore the Bishoppes cō∣mission for geuing, by the imposition of theire handes, the holy ghoste, may be iustified aswell by the former autho∣rities of scripture, as by the authority, practise, and doctrine of the Churche, that belieueth, that the holy ghoste is geuē for the encrease of al spiritual strength in confirmation.

The .164. Diuision. pag. 109. a.

M. Fekenham.

Wherevnto I do adioyne this obiectiō following. First for the time of the old lawe, whiche as Paule saide was a very figure of the new, Moses, Aaron, Eleazarus, being

Priests, they had by the very expresse worde of God, this iurisdiction ouer the people of God,* 1.251* 1.252 as to sit in iudgement vpon them, and that not only in Ecclesiasticall,* 1.253 but also in Politike and ciuill matters and causes: they did visite them, they did refourme them, they did order, correct, ād punish them, so oft as cause required, and without al com∣mission of any ciuill Magistrate, Gouernour, Kinge or Prince. Besides that for the whole time of the olde Lawe, there was an expresse Law made, where by all Ci∣uill Magistrats and Iudges were cōmaunded in al doubt∣full matters, to repaire to the Bisshops and Priests, and to staie vppon their determinations and iudgemēts, with∣out declining on the righte hande or the lefte. And if that any mā should disobey the determinatiō once geuen of the Priest, Morietur homo ille: like as it appeareth. Deut. 17.

M. Horne.

This adiūct vvil not serue your turn, for it is not possible to stretch it vvith∣out bursting, to ioyn with that you must conclude. You begin, to ioyne your vvorke together vvith a saying of S. Paule, vvhich he (.587.)* 1.254 neuer said, you should haue noted the place vvhere S. Paul saith, that the old Lavv vvas a very figure of the nevv. There is no such saying: S. Paule saith to the Heb. that the Lavv hath the shadovv of good things to come, &c. vvhere he speaketh not (.588.)* 1.255 generally of the vvhole Lavv, but of the cere∣monial part and Sacrifices, vvhich vvere shadovves of Christ and his Sacri∣fice, ād not of the Bisshops iurisdictiō after Christ, vnder the Lavv of the Go∣spel. Thus aptly also do your allegatiōs out of thold testamēt serue your purpose: for one of the three, to wit .29 of Exod. hath no woorde of this iurisdiction: only it sheweth the manner of consecrating the Priest, and the ceremonies the•• about. In the .24. of Exodus it is saide, that vvhen Moses vvente vp into the Mount, he said vnto the Elders; Tary vs here vntil

we retourne vnto you.* 1.256 Beholde Aaron and Hur, are here with you: if any mā haue ought to doe, let him come vnto them, that is, if any mater of cōtrouersie arise in mine absence, let Aaron and Hur, haue the hearing and deciding of it, as I should haue, if I vvere present. By this place Aaron had no authority geuen vnto him, but for a time in the absence of Moyses, by commission from Moses, the chiefe ruler and gouernour of Gods people, and that not alone, but hauing Hur one of the Elders, an Auncient and a vvise man ioyned in commission vvith him. This allegation maketh directly (.589.)* 1.257 against your conclusion: for it shevveth that Aaron had this Authoritie but by commission from Moyses the Prince of the people. In the thirde place, Num. 27. vvhere God shevved vnto Moses, that Iosue shoulde gouerne the people after him, it is saied: that Iosue should stand before Eleazar the Priest, who shal aske Councel for him by the iud∣gement of Vrim before the Lord, and at his word they shal go out and in, both he and the people of Israell: that is, vvhan Iosue standeth in doubt vvhat to do for the better gouernment of the people, either in the time of peace or vvarr, he shal vnderstand Gods vvil therin by the high Priest, to vvhom the Lord vvil miraculously declare his vvil and pleasure by the light or shining of the Vrim and Thumin, and according to Gods vvil shevved in the Vrim, to the high priest, and by him to Iosue, he must direct and order his goeing in and out: Ergo, say you. The Bishoppes and Priestes novve in the tyme of the Ghospell, haue Iurisdiction by the expresse vvord of God, to keepe Courtes, to call Councels, to make Lavves, and forinse∣callie to visite, refourme, order, and correcte theyr flockes and cures. The moste simple can iudge of this (.590.)* 1.258 sequele. After like sorte it is vvriten Deut. 17. That vvhan hard and doubtful cases come before the iudges or in∣feriour Magistrates, vvhich cannot easely be tried or founde out by them: than the inferiour Magistrates shall goe to the highe Prieste, and to the chiefe iudge at Hierusalem for the tyme beinge, vvhoe shall shevve vvhat is to be doone: vvhose sentence and iudgement muste not be disobeyed, vnder the paine of death. Doe you not aptly conclude, thinke you, that the Bi∣shopes in the time of the Ghospell ought to haue this Courtly iurisdiction, by∣cause the high Priest, and the (.591.)* 1.259 Temporall iudge, did determine doubt∣full cases in the time of the olde Testament? For the Priest alone did not de∣termine al causes, as you seeme to alleage the texe,

The .8. Chapter: Conteyning a Confutation of M. Hornes answer to the Obiections of M. Fekenham layed out of the olde lawe.

Stapleton.

IF a mā that hath an aduersary and such as he wil and must fight withall,* 1.260 may first by some prety deuice fynde the meanes, that his aduersarie may be caste in prison, and when he shal come to the combate, may appointe him also his weapon, or by a sleight conueye awaye his aduersaries good weapon, and in steade thereof, geue him some feble, weake, and rotten staff to fight with, then may this crafty false souldier, sone be a conquerour. It seameth now to me, that M. Horne, that pretendeth him self to be the prelate of the honourable order of the Garter, doth much dishonour him self, and sheweth to great cowardnes, offering M. Fe∣kenham in this combat, to much wrong: first procuring by sinister accusations, that he was restrayned of his liberty, ād then afterward in this his answere, geuing M. Fekenhā by a prety legerdemaine as it were a poore slender and weke weapon, for his inuasiue armure: who otherwise had pro∣uided for himself very wel: I meane of such argumēts as M. Fekenham hath made, which M. Horne taketh vpon him to soile and confute: after what sorte ye haue partly sene, and shal forthwith haue further experience. M. Fekenham then argueth after this sorte. In the olde Law which, as S. Paule saith, is a very figure of the new, Moyses, Aaron, and Elea∣zarus, being priests had the chief iudgment of matters Ec∣clesiastical without any commission from the cyuill magi∣strat: Again, al aswel cyuill magistrates and iudges as other were commaunded vpon payne of death, to obey the de∣termination of the priest in doubtful matters. Ergo the laye

Prince is not the supreme head or iudge in al spiritual and ecclesiastical causes. Ergo, the bisshops may visite and cor∣rect their flock without any commissiō of the Prince. This is good reader M. Fekenham his good and stronge inuasiue weapon. Ye shal now see, howe M. Horn•• doth slilie and craftely imbecile ād steale away this armure from him, and geueth him as it were a bulrush in his hand, and then step∣peth forth, like a new Gohath against litle Dauid. And first, ye may note what a profounde diuine he is, that maketh yt a straunge thing to heare that S. Paule should take the old Testament for a very figure of the newe. And yet this is so sure,* 1.261 and so sounde a principle, and so easie to be proued by all the new Testament: and so throughly and conforma∣bly confessed, as well of the Catholiks as protestants, that I meruaile what Maister Horne meaneth thus to wrangle. Nay, saith Maister Horne, yet S. Paule saith not so: he saith in dede, that the lawe, hath the shadowe of good thinges to come: but that perteyneth onelye to Christes sacrifice, whereof the olde lawes sacrifices were shadowes, and not to the bisshops iurisdiction vnder the ghospel. Why Maister Horne, is there none other place in S. Paule, that may serue M. Fekenhams turne think you,* 1.262 but this? You know M. Fe∣kenham quoted not this place which you alleage, nor any other, but being a matter so knowen and cōfessed, left it vn∣quoted. Therefore if S. Paule say so, either here, or other∣where, M. Fekenhās saying standeth for true. What say you then to S. Paul, that saith, that which was writen in the old law, thou shalt not mussel the mouthe of the oxe that treadeth out the corne, to haue bene writen for vs: and therby proueth, that ••he laye men should temporally relieue their spirituall pastours? Doth he not here take the old law for a very fi∣gure

of the new? Again doth not S. Paule say, that Agar ād the mount of Sina did represent the olde Lawe,* 1.263 and Ismael the Iewishe Synogoge: as Sara and Hierusalem doe represente the ghospell, and Isaac the Churche of Christe? which is our mo∣ther: as Saint Paule there saieth. Doth not S. Paule there bidde the Church of the Gentiles, that was before Christ barren and idolatrouse to reioyce, for that she should passe the Iewes and the Synagoge in all vertue, and in number of people? And doth not he further say, that as Ismaell persequuted Isaac: so should the false Iewes, the infidelles and heretikes persequute the true Churche of Christe? And who is this Ismael, yf ye be not? that doe not onelye persequute the Catholiques, but vilanouslye slaunder the whole Churches as Turkishe and idolatrouse, and as voyde and barren of al true relligion? Doth not the said S. Paule write also, that our Fathers were all vnderneath a clowde, and, that all passed the sea,* 1.264 and that all were baptized by Moyses in the clowde, and in the sea, and that thei all did eate one spirituall meate? Doth not he also playnelye saye, that these thinges chaunced to them in a figure? Here, here is the figure Maister Horn, not of the carnall sacrifices on∣ly signifying the sacrifice of Christe: but of two of our greatest Sacramentes, yea and yf there be no moe in num∣ber then ye and your fellowes saye, of all our sacraments. Here S. Paule saieth plainely, that those thinges that chaun∣ced to the Israelites passing the read sea, and eating Man∣na, were shadowes and figures for vs: that is, the read sea of our baptisme: the Manna and the water that flowed out of the Rocke, of our Manna: that is, of the bodye and bloudde of Christ that the Christians receaue in the bles∣sed Eucharistia. As S. Ambrose, S. Augustine and the other

fathers do moste fully and amply declare. Here might I by this figure inferre many things against your detestable do∣ctrine and blasphemy blowen out againste our heauenly Manna, in the forsayd sacrament: but we will not goe from our matter. Many like places of S. Paule I do here omitte, which may iustifie M. Fekenhams sayinge, of the which it pleaseth yow to pycke out that one, that seemeth to yowe weakest, and yet it is as strong or stronger thē any other. For though S. Paule doth speake in that place, of the sacri∣fice of Christ, that was shadowed by the carnal sacrifices of the Iewes, and goeth about to proue, that by the sacrifice of the Lawe synne was not taken away, but by the only sa∣crifice of Christ:* 1.265 yet the reason that he layeth forth for the maintenaunce of his assertion, can not be restrayned to the carnal sacrifices only, but is a general rule to argue from the olde Testamente to the newe: that is, that the old Te∣stamente was but a shadowe: the newe testament is the very expres image of the celesticall and heauenly thinges. And therfore Dionysius Areopagita, Gregory Nazianzene and others say, that the Church of Christ, stādeth as it were in the midle betwene the state of the sinagog of the Iewes, and the state that shal be in heauen: whervppon it will fol∣low that as those thinges, that be done in the Church pre∣sently, are a figure of those things that we shall see in hea∣uen (as S. Paule calling our present state (in enigmate) tea∣cheth) so those things that chaunced in the sinagog were a figure of those thīgs, that now are don in Christes Church. And as our present state, walking by fayth, is yet but in aeni∣gmate, in a darke representation, but afterward we shall see the glory of God facie ad faciem, face to face, as S. Paule tea∣cheth: so the state of the olde lawe was accordinge to the

Apostle also, Paedagogia ad Christū, an Introductiō to Christ,* 1.266 and as Gregory Nazianzen calleth it, Vallum quoddam inter Deum & idola medium, a certayne trenche or walle set in∣differently betwene God and Idols, so as we should passe from that to God, as from the sampler to the veritie, frō the figure to the thinge, and frō the shadowe to the body. And therfore among other things frequented in the Church, the ecclesiastical Hierarchia, or supreamacy, as it is a lyuely, and an expresse image of one God, in heauē, aboue so many and infinite nombers of holy spirits: so no doubt, it hath his sha∣dowe in the olde testament. And what other was he that M. Fekenhā here speaketh of, but the high priest M. Horn? And was not he the supreme iudge of all matters ecclesia∣stical? In al which causes lay there not an appeale, from all other priestes iudegments in doubtful cases, to him keping his residence in Hierusalem: euen as the course of all ap∣peales, in suche matters runneth nowe from all partes to the pope, remayning in Rome? This is euident by the place that maister Fekenham citeth: where yt ys writen,* 1.267 that yf any man stubbornelye and proudely disobeyed the priestes com∣maundement, that he shoulde by the commaundement of the Iudge be putte to death. The practise of this supreme iudge in causes Ecclesiasticall may be easely iustified, by many examples of the olde testament, namely by the doinges of the good kinge Iosaphat: who in the state of the lawe be∣inge the figure, renewed those thinges infringed and bro¦ken then by the idolatrouse and hereticall Iewes, the true image whereof, so longe kepte and reuerenced amonge the Christians, is nowe broken by yowe and suche as yow are. This Iosaphat placed at Hierusalem the leuites and priests and the chiefe of the famylyes of Israell to heare suche causes* 1.268

as shoulde be deuolued thither from all other quarters, tou∣ching any question of the Lawe of God (concerning matters of beliefe) touching commaundements (pertayning to the pre∣cepts moral) touching ceremonies, and touching iustifications, that is, iudicial precepts, geuen for the keping and obserua∣tion of Iustice. In all theis the Leuites, and priests, and the chief of the familyes were the Iudges:* 1.269 Amarias the highe priest being chiefe ouer them al in theis and such other matters pertayning to God and to religion. Thus lo at length ye see the shadowe and figure Maister Horne, in the olde lawe mete together, not onely for the sacrifice of Christe, but for the highe and chiefe prieste also, that should be amonge the Christians aboue all other states spirituall or temporall in all the world••. Neither can ye nowe, either deny this plaine and euident figure, or deny, that there is any good sequele of argumente to be deriued from the figure of the olde Lawe, to the newe testament. And verely (to leaue all other things that may be thereto iustly sayed) you of all men can leste disallowe this kinde of collection and ar∣guing, whiche to iustifie your newe Laical primacy haue vsed the sayed argument your selfe. Neither doe I buylde so muche vppon the figure, nor make so greate accompte of yt, as I doe of the drifte and force of very reason, that muste dryue vs to condescende to the order of the Church, and doth extorte our confession in this poynte.* 1.270 Whiche reason is, that God loueth his Churche, aswell as he did the Iewes Synagoge, and hath as louingly, as plentifully, and as effectually prouided for the good gouernement of the same, as he dyd for the synagoge. And therefore to pacifie Diuisions, schismes, and heresies, he hath pro∣uided vs one spirituall Cowrte, to decide, and vtterly to

determyn al controuersies, rising vppon matters of reli∣gion, as he prouided for the Iewes. And so much the more, amonge Christians then among the Iewes, for that the Christians, beinge of so many and diuers nations, tongues, wyttes, manners, and fasshions, many cōtrouersies for fayth and religion, and of more weight and moment, will also arise and springe vppe, then euer rose amonge the Iewes beinge but one onely Nation. Especially the Apostle fore∣tellinge vs, that heresies must arise.* 1.271 And yf there be not one certayne iudg appoynted, to whome all nations must indifferently obeye, yt muste neades be, that Christen∣dome shall contynewe in a continuall broyle and ruffle of sects and heresies. Which also haue in our tyme so terri∣bly and hugely encreased, by nothinge more, then that we geue no eare to this one iudge: and that we do not, as our forefathers haue done, staye our selues, and depende vppon this the highest cowrte of all Christendome. Ye see nowe good reader both the figure, and the reason of the figure: what sayeth nowe M. Horne to it?* 1.272 Full pretely I warrante yow: and that is, that Maister Fekenham doth not aptly conclude, that the bisshoppes in the tyme of the Ghospell owght to haue iurisdiction by the expresse woorde of God, to kepe cowrts, to call Councells, to make Lawes, to vi∣site, and to reforme & caet. because the highe priest, and the tem∣porall iudge, did determyne doubtfull cases, in the tyme of the olde testament: for the priest alone did not determyne all cau∣ses, as M. Fekenham seameth to alleage the text. Here may yow playnelie see, that Maister Fekenham can not vse his owne armure, but such onely as Maister Horne wil graunt him. For neither M. Fekenham speaketh of the temporall iudge, nor his texte, be it Latin, Greke or Hebrewe. They

all speake of a iudge, but nothing is there to signifie this woorde temporall. This woorde is shamefully infarsed by Maister Horne, to vpholde his temporall supremacye, by this place most greauously battered. The iudge and the high Priest is al one, as doth appere by the letter, and by the do∣ing of Kinge Iosaphat, which was conformable to the cō∣maundement of Moyses, where as Amarias is appointed the chief for spiritual matters, as Zabadias was for those thinges that perteyned to the Kinges office. Which may be wel vnderstanded for the bodilie punishment of those that disobeyed the high priest, and to put them to death, yf the case required, according to the Lawe. And in that sense yt may be taken perchaunce for a temporal Iudge. This notwithstanding yt agreeth well enowghe, with the high priest to.* 1.273 For that diuerse tymes aswell before there were any Kings as afterward, the high priest had the cheif regiment, both temporal and Ecclesiasticall: but though he had not euer the temporal, yet had he euer the Ecclesiasti∣call supremacy: And therefore it is writen of the Prophete Malachie,* 1.274 that the lipps of the priestes shall preserue knowledg, and they shall seke the lawe at his mowthe. And it is here wri∣ten,* 1.275 who so euer disobeyeth the priest, shal die. He saith not, who so euer diosobeyeth the temporal Iudge. For the high Priest is the Iudge:* 1.276 al one person, and not two. And so S. Cyprian with the other fathers taketh place. When I speake of the high priest, I exclude not o∣ther of the clergy, with whome the Pope, in all graue and weighty causes vseth to consult, and of congruence ought so to do, and so it was in the old Law. Neither M. Fekenham, as ye charge him, saith so, but layeth forth the text as it is, saying, that he

that disobeyeth the priest, shall die for it. Nowe the highe priest being this authorised, and Moses, Aaron, and Eleaza∣rus being successiuely the highe priestes, it must nedes fol∣low, that they had the chiefe superiority for matters eccle∣siastical, neding no further authority, then that they had by the expresse woorde of God, for the executing of theire office, whether it were in geuinge sentence, and making decrees Ecclesiasticall, or in visiting and reforming the priests, and Leuites that were vnderneth them: which if ye can shewe they did not, nor coulde do, but by the ciuill magistrates authority, we shall then geue you some eare. But ye proue it not, nor euer shall be able to proue this pa∣radoxe. And therfore we passe not, whether it be true or no, that in the .29. of Exodus, there is neuer a worde of iurisdiction. It is sufficiente, that Maister Fekenham proue Aaron to haue bene the highe prieste, as he was in dede, and so yt appeareth there. Where nowe ye would returne against M. Fekenham the .24. of Exodus, ye haue forgot∣ten your selfe. For at that tyme Aaron was not yet made highe priest, but afterward he was so made, as appereth in the 3. chapter after: Videlicet cap. 28.* 1.277 And therfore he might haue a commission to heare causes in Moses absence well inowgh: Moses being then both the prince, and the highe priest also, ād he, as is sayd, being yet no priest at al. For your answere to the .3. place by M. Fekenhā alleaged, we might passe it, sauing that by your cōming in with Vrim and Thu∣nim you haue much holpen M. Fekenhā his argument, and cut your self with your Thunim quite ouer the thume. For though theis outward miraculouse signes, do not nowe ap∣peare in our high priest, yet the thing that was signified by Vrim ād Thunim set in the brestplate of the high priest, that

is, light and perfectiō, as some expoūd it, or as our cōmō trās∣latiō hath, doctrin ād verity: remaine now in our high priest aswel as they did thē remaine in the high priest of the olde Testamēt, yea and much more. And therfore the true do∣ctrine is to be fetched at the high priests or bisshops hands, in al doubts and perplexities of religiō, ād cōsequently all lawes, decrees, and ordinaūces, made for the obseruatiō of his sentēce and determinatiō, are to be obserued. To what purpose were it for priests to declare ād determin the truth, if they might not by some forcible Lawe cōpel men to the keping of the same, which is nowe chiefly practised in the Church by excōmunicatiōs, as appereth by general, and by other Coūcels? The like hereof the Iewes had in thrusting the disobediēt ād rebellious persons out of the Synagoge.* 1.278 Now to imagine such an vnprobable and an vnlikely para∣doxe, that bishops hauing cōmissiō frō God to fede the peo∣ple, to teache them, and instruct them, and hauing a charge of their soules, for the which they shall make to God an ac∣compt, may not visite and reforme their flock by examina∣tions, iudgements and trialles forinsecal, also by excommu∣nication, depriuation, or such like ecclesiastical punishmēts, without a new commission from the Prince, and to bringe nor reason, nor authority, nor Scripture, nor Doctour, nor coūcel, nor exāple in Christes Church at any time practised for the cōfirmatiō of yt, but only a decree of laye men, con∣trary to their own Pastours and bishops: it is such a kind of persuasiō, as wel may be forceable, to the hād ād the mouth, to extort frō thē an outward cōsent for feare of displeasure, but to the hart and cōsciēce of a Christē mā professing obe∣diēce to Christ and his dere Spouse the Church ād perfour∣ming the same, it shal neuer be able to perce vnto. As for the

Sequele of M. Feckēhās argumēt, whereof you say, the most simple cā iudge, as though it were but a simple sequele, to in∣fer vpō the Bishops authority in the old law, the Iurisdictiōs of the bishops in the new Testament, or vpon the example of Eleazar to inferre forinsecall, as you call it, iurisdiction in bishoppes, it appereth by that hath ben said, both that the deductiō frō the old law to the new is right good and such as your self most plētifully haue vsed in the first part of your book: yea so far, that you charge M. Fekn. (though vntruly) for a Donatist, for seeming to auoid such kind of prouf: and also it appereth that a vaine thing it were for bishops now (after the example of Eleazarus) to haue the directing, fee∣ding, and ordering of Gods people, if thei had not withal po¦wer and authority to cal back such as goe a stray, to punish the offenders, to visit their cures, to refourme disorders, to make lawes for order to be kept &c. in vain I say, seing that the one without the other neither was at any tyme auay∣lable, neither can by any reason possibly be auailable.

M. Fekenham. The .165. Diuision. pag. 110. a.

The seconde, in the newe Testament: like as our Sa∣uiour Christe did committe and leaue the whole Spiri∣tual gouernement, of his people and Churche vnto his A∣postles, and to the Bisshoppes and Priestes, and the suc∣cessours of thē. So they did practise al Spirituall gouern∣ment ouer them, they did execute and geue iudgement in the Churche of Christe: they did refourme, order, and correcte all disorder therein, and that without all com∣mission, ayde, or authority of any Temporall Magistrat, King, or Prince, for the space of three hundreth yeres in

the primatiue Churche of Christe,* 1.279 vnto the time of Con∣stantine, he being the first Christian Kinge and Empe∣rour, which did ioyne his sworde to the maintenaunce of Gods worde.

M. Horne.

Like as the Apostles had in commission povver from Christe our Sauiour, to vvhome al povver vvas geuen both in heauen and in earth: so faithfully they executed the auth••rity and charge committed vnto them, not seeking their ovvne honour by vsurpation, but the glory of Christ by the abasing them selues euen vnto the death. Their commission regestred by S. Mathevv appea∣reth in these vvordes. Goe and teache al the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy ghost, teaching them to kepe all things, which I haue commaunded you. Hovv faithfully they exercised this authority according to the commission, S. Luke shevveth in his Chronicle, called the Actes of the Apostles, and set∣teth forth one notable example hereof in Paules oration, made to the Elders of Ephesus, called to Miletum. He taketh them to witnesse, that he kept nothing backe from them, that might be for their profit, but shewed them al the councel of God. It is much (592)* 1.280 maruail that Paul shevved al Gods councel vnto them and yet made no mention of any Fo∣rinsecal, iurisdiction as geuen them by the commission of Gods vvorde. The godly Bisshops that succeded the Apostles for manye yeres after, follovved the doctrine and examples of the Apostles, yet (.593.)* 1.281 neuer exercising iurisdictiō Forinsecal, neither iudging, reforming, ordering, or correcting, othervvise than bye preaching, publikely or priuately vvithout especial consent and commission of their Churches, during the time thei had no Christian Prince or Magistrate. Constātinus, as I haue said, vvas not the first Chri∣stian King: But he vvas the very first Emperour, as your ovvne vvriters doe vvitnesse, that (.594.)* 1.282 gaue Bisshops authority to iudge and exercise iurisdiction ouer their Clergy, and that gaue to the Bisshop of Rome povver and (.595.)* 1.283 authority ouer other Bis∣shops,

as iudges haue the King ouer them,* 1.284 and that gaue to him povver and iurisdiction ouer al other Churches, if that Donation be not forged vvhich Gratian citeth. And Petrus Bertrandus a Bisshop, a Cardinal, and one of your best learned in the Canon and Ciuil lavves, in his treatise De origine iurisdictionum, affirmeth, that Theodosius and Carolus Magn{us}, did (596)* 1.285 graunt vnto the Churche al iudgementes. For the proufe vvhereof, he auoucheth diuerse decrees, and (.597.)* 1.286 addeth, That such grauntes were afterwards abrogated.

The .9. Chapter: Of Spirituall Iurisdiction exercised by bis∣shops without Princes commissions, and be∣fore Constantines time.

Stapleton.

MAister Fekenham bringeth now forth certain auto∣rities of the new testament, for the iustifying of his purpose, as that Christ committed to his Apostles,* 1.287 and to their successours the whole spiritual gouernement, and that they did practise and exercise the same .300. yeres together without any maner of commission from Princes, euē to the tyme of Cōstantin the great. M. Horn thinketh it a sufficient answere with stoute asseueration voyde of al maner of probation, to auouche that they had a commissiō, he dareth not say now of their Princes (being al, or almoste al infidels) but of their Churches. Yea well and sone saide M. Horne: but yf ye would withall haue layde before your reader, but one authour old or new, good or badde (vnlesse perchaunce ye may bring some of your own fellowes) and but one example for these .300. yeres, we would the better haue born with you. Now ye tel vs the Apostles did preach and baptise, and other such extraordinary matters, leauing the thing vnproued, wherein lieth al the question betwene

yow and M. Feckenham. Your assertion is altogeather in∣credible,* 1.288 and a very peeuishe fantasticall imagination, that no man of the clergy or Laiety these 300. yeres was excō∣municated, for any manner of offence, no priest was for∣bydde to minister the Sacraments, or deposed for his de∣faults, by his bishoppe, but by a speciall commission of the prince, or whole Churche. Ye may aswel pul downe the towre of London M. Horne with your litle finger, as ye shall be able to proue this fonde assertion. But yet before Cōstantinus the great his time, ye think your self cock sure. Let vs then see howe sure ye are, euen of this your onely example. Verely I suppose, that no man lyuinge, vnlesse he hath a brasen face, would for shame of the worlde thus de∣meane him self,* 1.289 in so graue and weighty matters, and linck so many Lies together, as lynes, as you doe in this your false narration that nowe followeth. Constantine, you say, was the very first emperor, that gaue bishops authority to iudge and exercise iurisdiction ouer theire clergy. What Emperour then, I beseche you, graunted to the Apostles authority, to make suche Lawes, and constitutions Ecclesiasticall as be nowe extante, which haue in them diuers paynes and pe∣nalties, as excommunication, and depriuation against the trāsgressours?* 1.290 By what Emperours or other lay mans war∣rant, did the bishops kepe so many Councelles, as we fynd they kepte, before this Constantines tyme? Namely the .2. Synods kept against Paulus Samosatenus in Antioche, the Councel of Carthage in Afrike vnder S. Cyprian, the Coū∣cells of Gangra against Eustachius, of Ancyra againste the Manichees, of Neocesarea against the Archōtici, the Coū∣cels also vnder Victor the pope at Rome, vnder Narcissus at Hierusalē, vnder Palmas in Pontus, vnder Ireneus in Fraūce,

vnder Bacchylus at Corinthe, vnder Fabianus also and Cor∣nelius at Rome, and diuers other bishops in other Coūtres, all before the dayes of the first Coūcel of Nice vnder Cō∣stantin, al without any Cōmissiō frō Princes of this worlde, al groūded vpō their own supreme gouernmēt and Iurisdi∣ctiō geuē vnto thē by th'expres word of God.* 1.291 What warrāt had they for the ecclesiasticall decrees by thē there ordey∣ned? By what princes or lay mans cōmission, were Valenti∣nus, Paulus Samosatenus, ād the whole rablemēt of forena∣med heretiks cōdēned ād excōmunicated? By what cōmissiō did the blessed bisshop of Antiochia, ād martyr Babylas, for∣bid thēperour, that he should not enter into the Church a∣mōg the Christiās? If the bishops had nothing to do, but to preach and minister Sacramēts, and no iurisdictiō in hearīg of causes, before the time of this Constantine, what did the bishops of Alexandria with a solēne iudgmēt seate, appoin∣ted withī the Church ther for the bishops of that sea? What warrāt had Pope Victor, for th'excōmunicating of the blas¦phemous heretike Theodot{us}? Yea what authority had he to excōmunicat the bishops of Asia so far frō hī? What warrāt had Fabianus the pope, of whom we haue spokē to appoint thēperor as we haue sayd, to stād amōg the penitēts as a par∣son excōmunicated? By what commissiō made the blessed Pope ād martyr Antherus certaine lawes ecclesiastical,* 1.292 and among, other touching the translations of bishops?

But here M. Iewell will helpe yowe at a pinche like a trusty frende, and with a newe shi••te wil pleade vppon the state inficial, denying vtterly the old decretal epistles, and among other this: and will stand vppon no foggy or false ground, as he saieth M.D. Harding doth,* 1.293 but set his fast fo∣ting vppon a sure and an infallible reason, against Antherus epistle making mention of the bishoppes Felix, and Eusebius

that were not borne al the time Antherus lyued. But what if they were borne before him, where is all this your great holde then?* 1.294 Yf I should alleage Sabellicus, though he be a very good Chronicler, and well allowed, or any other La∣tin man, to make this epistle authenticall, perchaunce ye would cry out against him and say that he were partiall, ād a papist to. I wil therfore prouide you a Grecian, and a late Grecian to, whom ye shal haue no cause to refuse as suspe∣cted,* 1.295 and that is Nicephorus, by whom it may wel appeare that the Grecians toke this Decree for authentical. In him also, shal ye find expresse mention of the sayd Eusebius and Felix. Ye shall also there find a notable place of the autho∣rity of the sea of Rome that ye impugne, that such transla∣tions must be authorised by the popes assent and confirma∣tion. Seing then Nicephorus is no papist, why ye call him one of our owne writers I knowe not, being no Latin mā, but a Grecian, and infected also with theire schisme: and yet not withstanding in all other things catholyke, and full against your newe heresies. And for that respect I am con∣tent to take him for one of our writers. And now woulde I see, what vantage ye can take at his hande, for the prouf of your fowle false paradoxe. Yf ye will proue any thinge for the relief of your paradoxe, ye must proue, that no Chri∣stian bisshops vnder the Roman empyre, had authority to iudge or exercise any iurisdictiō ouer theyr clergy, but such as they had by commissiō and graunt from Cōstantinus. Let vs then heare Nicephorus him self, that euery mā may see, that ye can not possible stretche him without bursting, to ioyne with that, which you ought to conclude. Qua verò imperator Constantinus obseruantia erga professionem fidei no∣strae fuerit,* 1.296 abundè illud quoque testatur, quòd clericos omnes

constitutione lata immunes liberos{que} esse permisit: iudicium{que} & iurisdictionem in eos Episcopis si quidem ciuilium iudicum cog∣nitionē declinare vellēt, mādauit: & quod episcopi iudicassent, id robur & authoritatem sententiae omnino habere debere de∣creuit. Firma quoque & immutabilia esse voluit, quae in synodis constituta essent, & quae ab episcopis iudicata forent, vt ea â magistratibus rempublicam administrantibus, militarique quae sub eis essent manu exequutioni mandarentur, at{que} ad rem col∣lata perficerentur constituit. This thing also (saieth Nicepho∣rus) doth abundantly testifie,* 1.297 what honour and reuerence he did beare toward our faith, that he ordeyned by a lawe of his making, that all, that were of the Clergie shoulde be free and exempted frō paying tribute: and that in case they would refuse the iudgement of the temporall magistrates, that the Bishops should haue the iurisdictiō vpon them, and geue sentence in the cause. And that the sayed episcopall iudgement should haue ful strength and authority. He or∣deined also, that those thinges that were decreed in a sy∣node of Bishopes, should stande stronge and immutable, and that the bishoply iudgement, should be put in execution by his ciuil magistrates, with the helpe of suche souldiers, as they had vnderneath them. Stretche this nowe M. Horne, to your conclusion, if ye can without bursting.

We haue here a Lawe of Constantine, that those that be of the Clergie, may choose whether they wil answere for any matter, what so euer it be before a laie man. They may if they wil cause the matter to be deuolued to the Bisshop: but here is neuer a word of Ecclesiastical matters. In such Constātine geueth the bishops no iurisdiction, for they had it before. Neither is there here any one woorde, that the Bishoppes should neither summon Councelles, nor make

ecclesiastical Lawes without the Princes consent. Here is a plaine ordinaunce that the lay Magistrates shal see, that the Synodical Decrees shall be put in execution. Wherby contrary to the conclusion that ye mainteine through out this your answere, it well appeareth, that the Princes part is onely to see, that the Ecclesiasticall decrees made by the Bishops be kept and put in vre, and not to haue any neces∣sarie consente, in the allowing, or disallowing of them.

Which appeareth also most euidently in Eusebius writing of this Constantine in this sort:* 1.298 Quae ab Episcopis in publicis conuentibus editae erant regulae, sua consignabat & confirma∣bat authoritate: He signed and confirmed with his Autho∣ritie, suche Canons or rules, as the Bisshoppes in their as∣semblies had decreed. But how? As though without his royall assente, the Canons shoulde haue beene voide, and of no Authoritie, as you woulde make folke beleue? No, but (as the same Eusebius writeth in the same place) Ne re∣liquarum gentiū principibus liceret, quae ab eis decreta essent, abrogate: to the intent that it should not be lawful for Prin∣ces of other Nations, to abrogate or refuse the Bishops De∣crees. And the reason he addeth immediatly: Cuiusuis enim Iudicis sententiae Sacerdotū Dei Iudiciū anteponendū esse. For the Emperour estemed that the iudgemēt and determina∣tion of the Priests of God, was to be preferred before the Sentence of any other what so euer Iudge.* 1.299 This man there∣fore M. Horn (to tel you it ones again) can be no fitte exā∣ple of the like gouernment now by you mainteined in the Quenes highnes person, and al other the inheritours of the Realme of England.

Now as Constantine did set the Clergie at their liberty, whether they would answere in any secular court: So the

noble Emperour Theodosius set as wel al the Lai∣tie as the Clergie, at the like libertie, and ordeined,* 1.300 that the plaintife in any cause, any time before the sentence, might breake of, from his ordinary Iudge, and bring the matter whether the defendāt would or no, to the Episcopal audience. The which ordi∣naunce, the Great Charles aboute .400. yeares after renewed to be inuiolably obserued of all his subie∣ctes, as wel the Romaines and the Frenchemen, as the Almanes, the Bauarians, the Saxons, the Turin∣giās, the Frisons, the Galles, the Britanes, the Lom∣bards, the Gascons, the Beneuentanes, the Gothes, and the Spaniards.

As ye do with Constantinus Magnus, so doe ye with Theodosius Magnus, and with Carolus Mag∣nus constitutions: bringing them forth out of your blind Cacus denne, to dasel and bleare the Readers withal: as though the Bishops helde their ordinarie iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall, by these decrees onely, which do nothing thervnto appertaine, but shew a marueilouse priuilege geuen to them to heare and determine also all tēporall matters brought before thē. And if these graunts wer afterward abrogated, yet was that no abrogatiō to the iurisdictiō, that is proprely the ecclesiastical iurisdictiō: and your au∣thor doth not say, that such graūts were afterwards abrogated, but doth reason against them that saide they were abrogated. Neither is his booke entitu∣led De origine iurisdictionū, but de iurisdictione Ec∣clesiastica. And was this Petrus Bertrandus then as you say, a Bisshop, a Cardinal and one of our best lear∣ned men in the Canon and Ciuil Lawes?

Suerly then may your Petrus Cugne••ius, thoughe ye a∣uāce him as a worthy knight, go hide his head in a corner. For againste him and his folishe fonde arguing againste the ecclesiastical liberty is all his booke writen, as I haue be∣fore declared.* 1.301

Wherfore all this your tale that the bishops held their iurisdiction ouer theire clergy by Constantine his ghifte, is as true, as your other adiuncte: that he gaue the Bishops of Rome power and authority ouer other Bishoppes and ouer al churches. He might well as he did in dede, reuerently agnise,* 1.302 and by his Imperial authoritie confirme and corro∣borate the vsual authoritie of the Popes holines: but that the original of this authority, as ye imagine, came frō him, ys a great vntruth.* 1.303 For euen before his time, and after, not onely the Christians, but the verie infidelles, suche as were acquainted with the maners and fashions of the Christians did wel knowe, that the Bishop of Rome was counted the cheif bishop amonge them al. And for this cause Ammia∣nus Marcellin{us} an heathnish cronicler writeth, that though Athanasius the good bishop were by a councell of Arrian bishoppes condemned,* 1.304 yet that notwithstanding, Constā∣tius sonne to this Constantinus, and an Arrian, and his plain open enemie, was ernestlie in hande with Pope Liberius also to confirme their sentence, and was by him banished, because he would not condescende to thēperours request. Againe before the time of this Constantinus, Paulus Samo∣satenus bishop of Antiochia being depriued by a councell of bishoppes, and an other appointed by the sayde councel in his stede, kepte stil possession, nothing regarding either the sentence of depriuation or of excommunication. The Emperour Aurelianus being certified of this matter gaue

commaundement, that he whome so euer the bishoppe of Rome, with the bishops of Italie should acknowledge for the bishop of Antiochia, should be taken and accepted for the true bishop. And so was Paulus by this Emperours cō∣maundement, though he were a very infidell, thruste out,* 1.305 and an other set in. What proufe haue ye now, M. Horne, that the Pope hath his authoritie from Constantine? Sure∣ly Gentle Reader, none other but the Donation of Con∣stantine, whiche he him selfe doth not beleeue to be true: and therefore dothe qualifie it with these woordes, if it be not forged.

Whiche being so, why doeth your wisedome then,* 1.306 M. Horne alleage it? Neither wil I here, though Leo the 9. doth constantly testifie, that he sawe and had him selfe the originall of this donation laide by Constātinus owne hand vpon the bodie of S. Peter, though Eugubinus answereth to all Laurence Valla his obiections againste this donation: yea though Balsamon a Grecian,* 1.307 and an open ennemie to the Pope, alleageth this Donati∣on as authentical: I wil not yet, I say, resolue any thing for the one, or the other side: I will take it as I find it, and take you withall, as I find you, and that is a plaine open lyar. For howsoeuer the Do∣nation be, the Pope toke not his Supremacy of this Donation, but had it before, of an higher Empe∣rour, and that is, of Christe him selfe. Whiche the foresaid donatiō doth also openly testify, but not in the .86. as ye falsly quote it, but in the .96. distinctiō.

M. Fekenham. The .166. Diuision. Pag. 111. a.

At the first Councel holden at Hierusalem, for the re∣formation of the controuersy that was than at Antioche,

touching Circumcision, and the obseruation of Moses Lawe, decree was made there by the Apostles and Prie∣stes, vnto the beleuers at Antioche, that they should ab∣steine from these fowre chiefe and necessary thinges, viz. ab immolatis simulachrorum,* 1.308 à sanguine & suffocato, à for∣nicatione, à quib. custodiētes vos, bene agetis. The whiche first councell was there assembled by the Apostles of Christ. The Decrees and Lawes, were made there by thē: The cōtrouersy at Antioche, was by them reformed, or∣dered, and corrected without all commission of any tem∣poral Magistrate, King, or Prince.

M. Horne.

God be thanked, that S. Luke maketh to vs a sufficient report of this councell, vvho maketh no mention of any (.598.)* 1.309 Priest there present, as you vntruely report, onles ye vvill thinke he meant the order of Priestes, vvhan he named the faction of the Pharisees. VVhether the Apostles called this coū∣cel or not: or that the Congregation being assembled together in their ordi∣nary sort, for praier, preaching, and breaking of bread, Paulus and Barna∣bas, vvith the others, sent to Hierusalem, did declare the cause of their message before the vvhole Churche, vvhich is more likely, I vvil not deter∣mine, bicause S. Luke maketh no mention thereof. But if it be true, that ye affirme, that the Apostles called or assembled this Councel, then vvas it not the authoritie or Acte of one Apostle alone. Besides this, if the Apostles cal∣led this councel, they called the Laytie so vvel as the Clergy to the councell: yea, as may seeme probable, mo of the Laytie than of the Clergy. The decrees vvere not made by the Apostles (.599.)* 1.310 alone, as you falsely feyne. For S. Luke saieth, the decree vvas made by the Apostles, Elders, and the (.600.)* 1.311 vvhole Congregation. The Apostles, I graunt, as vvas moste cōuenient vvith the Elders had the debating, arguing and discussing of the questiō in cōtro∣uersie. They declared out of the holy Scriptures, vvhat vvas the truthe: And I doubt not but they declared to the Church, vvhat they thought most con∣uenient

to be determined: But the determination and decree, vvas by the common consent, both of the Apostles, Elders, and (.601.)* 1.312 people. Therfore this controuersy vvas reformed, ordered, and cor∣rected, not by the authority of the Apostles alone, vvithout the Elders, neither they togeather did it vvithout the assent of the Churche, and so this allegation maketh no (.602.)* 1.313 deale for your purpose, but rather cleane against it.

Stapleton.

There followeth now an other reason out of the newe testamente, browght forth by M. Fekenham. The effecte wherof is, that the Apostles and other priestes, both assem∣bled in councel, and reformed wrong opinions among the Christians, setting abrode theire decrees without any con∣mission of any ciuill magistrate: which is quite contrary to the absurde opinion mainteined by M. Horne: who is faine therefore to wince hither ād thither, and wotteth not well where to rest him self for a resolute answere. First he quar∣relleth with the worde, Priestes, and to no purpose:* 1.314 the ar∣gumente remaining sownde and whole, be they to be cal∣led Priestes, or be they to be called Elders. For though be∣fore the worde, Ministers, did like M. Horne well, yet the worde Elders liketh him here better. Priestes he is assured there were none among the Apostles, in this councel, vn∣lesse they were the Pharisees. And so with his pleasante pharisaicall myrthe, he maketh the Apostles them selues Pharisees. For Priestes it is certain they were,* 1.315 as I haue de∣clared before. Nowe for the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (which word the Latin and our tonge, and almost al other tongues in Europa, namelie the Frenche, the Italian, the Spay∣nishe, the highe and lowe Dutche, yea and all other as

farre as I can yet learne, doe expresse by a like worde de∣riued from the Greke) though yt signifie an elder in age, by the proper significatiō of the Greke word, yet in scrip∣ture it signifieth that office and dignitie in a man that we cal Priesthod: that is, such an Elder as is a Priest withall. And yet not alwaies to be so called for his age, as appereth by Timothee who was but yong. Truth it is, that this word in Greke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sometime signifieth the inferior in dignitie, and him that is vnder the Bishoppe, and sometime the Bishop. As sometime this woorde Apostolus, signifieth none of the .xij. Apostles, but a Bishop: and so is the one and the other confounded in Scripture.

Whereof Theodoretus is an vndoubted witnesse. For thus he writeth:* 1.316 Eosdem olim vocabant presbyteros & Epis∣copos, eos autem qui nunc vocantur Episcopi, nominabant Apo∣stolos. Procedente autem tempore nomen quidem Apostolorum reliquerunt ijs qui verè erant Apostoli: Episcopatus autē appel∣lationem imposuerunt ijs, qui olim appellabantur Apostoli. Ita Philippensium Apostolus erat Epaphroditus, Ita Cretensiū Ti∣tus, Asianorum Timotheus.* 1.317 In the old time (he meaneth the Primitiue Church, as with the like terme Chrysostō doth) men called Priests and Bishops all one. But those whiche are now called Bishops, they called Apostles. Afterward in processe of time, they lefte the names of Apostles, to those which were in dede Apostles. And bishops they cal∣led those, whiche in olde time were called Apostles. So Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippenses, so Titus of the people of Creta, and Timothe of the Asians. Thus then, those which were in dede Bishops, being in the Apo∣stles time called Priestes, verely in this place also of the Actes, by these wordes Priests, may very wel be taken not

only simple Priests, but euen those that were Bishops too. And then hath M. Horne lost al the grace of his Pharisaical iesting. But now is the man in a great muse with him selfe, whether he may graunt to M. Fekenham, that this Coun∣cell was called by the Apostles: though of his modestie (which is here to be wondered at, it sheweth it selfe so sel∣dome) he wil not determine the matter. And then doth he ful sadlie imagine, as a thing moste likely, that the Apo∣stles Paulus and Barnabas came to Hierusalem iump at that time, that the Apostles and the congregation were assem∣bled already together to common prayer. And by as good likelyhood they made poste haste to present them ere the congregation brake vppe, least they should haue lost their iourny for lacke of authority in the Apostles to cal a Coū∣cel: or tarrie at least vntill the next time, that they assem∣bled for praier. And whie, I pray you, might they not as wel call a Councel, as assemble together for other causes? And whie do you so fondly ground your likelinesse vppon that, which hathe no likelihood? And why doe ye thus wrangle, seing S. Luke him selfe sheweth plainly the cause of their meeting?* 1.318 Conuenerunt{que} Apostoli & seniores vide∣re de verbo hoc. The Apostles and the Priests assembled to∣gether to consider of this matter. Then haue we an other snarling, that this was not the acte of one Apostle alone. Neither dothe the Pope alone (for that belike is the matter ye so closely shote at) make any decree, but either by a coū∣cel, or with the aduise of his Cardinales and others. Which in all weighty matters no doubt he dothe, though he after al, as the head, geue the Sentence. At length yet M. Horn taking a better hart vnto him selfe, goeth roundlye to the matter, and resolueth vs, that this Decree was made not by

the Apostles only, and the priestes, but by the whole Con∣gregatiō ther present, as S. Luke saieth. Then is there good cause to beleue him, M. Horne. I heare you say, that Saint Luke saith, the decree was made by the Apostles, Elders, and the whole Congregation. But as yet I heare not S. Luke say so,* 1.319 nor euer shal hear him so saie. S. Luke saith, first, that the Apostles and Priests gathered them selues togeather to consult vpon the matter. He saith, that S. Peter spake first his mind, and S. Iames being Bishop there▪* 1.320 confirmed his sayings. S. Luke also calleth these decrees, the decrees of the Apo∣stles and Priests, speaking no worde of the whole congre∣gation. And when the contention for keping Moses Law waxed hotte at Antiochia, the Churche there sent Paulus and Barnabas and others to Hierusalē, but not to the whole congregation,* 1.321 but to the Apostles and Priests. Truth it is, that it appeareth also in S. Luke, that by cōmon consent of the Apostles of the Priests, and of the whole congregatiō, Iudas and Barsabas were elected to accompanie S. Paul and Barnabas in their iourny to Antiochia, ād to present to the Christians there▪ the Decrees of the Councel: but that the decree was made by the whole cōgregation, that doth not appeare: but only that they did, as meete it was, reuerently consent, imbrace, and receiue it: as the Catholike Princes and al their people that be Catholik, do allow, imbrace, and reuerēce the late Synod holden at Trent, where were pre∣sent the Ambassadours of al the said Catholike Princes, and yet had they there no absolute voice or consent, touching the definition of the questions there debated and determi∣ned. Nay, not the laie men onely, but the very Priests them selues, haue no necessary cōsent, which standeth in the Bi∣shops only, as the whole practise of the church sheweth frō

the Apostles time.* 1.322 Therfore in the fourth General Coūcell of Chalcedō the Bishops cryed. Synodus Episcoporum est, non clericorum. A Synod or Councel consisteth of Bishops, not of the (inferiour) clergy. And againe in the same Councel: Petrus a priest protested no lesse, saying: Non est meum sub∣scribere, Episcoporum tantùm est. It is not my parte to sub∣scribe, it belōgeth only to Bishops. Thus subscriptiō, (wher∣in necessary consent is expressed) is confessed to pertayne to bishops only, not to Priests. And therfore yt is very like∣ly, that theis that you call Elders, were not single priestes, but bishops also. Wherein as I will not cōtende, so though yt were true, that the whole cōgregatiō gaue their voice, yet the supremacy in the sayed and other matters remay∣ned not in them, but in the Apostles▪ as may wel appere by this very place, to him that wil but reade and consider the text of S. Luke.

M. Fekenham. The .167. Diuision. pag. 111. b.

The Apostles also hearing at Hierusalem,* 1.323 that Sa∣maria had receiued the woord of God, they did sende Pe∣ter and Iohn, to visite thē to confirme them in faithe, and that they might receiue the holy Ghost by the imposition of their handes. Paule and Barnabas did agree betwixt them selues, to visite al those Cities and bretheren, which they had cōuerted to the faithe.* 1.324 The woordes of the Scri∣pture are these: Dixit ad Barnabam Paulus, reuertentens, vi∣sitemus fratres per vniuersas Ciuitates, in quibus praedica∣uimus verbum Domini, quomodo se habeant. In the which visitation, the Apostle Paule: Electo Sila per∣ambulabat Syriam & Ciliciam, confirmans Ecclesias, prae∣cipiens custodire praecepta Apostolorum & Seniorum.

By the whiche wordes it right well appeareth, howe the Apostles and Priestes at Hierusalem, ouer and besides the Ghospell whiche they taught, they did make certaine Decrees, Lawes, and ordinaunces, the whiche the Apo∣stle Paule in his visitation,* 1.325 gaue commaundement to the Syrians, and Siliciās, to obserue and keepe. What Lawes and orders did the Apostle make and appoint vnto the Co¦rinthians, that men should neither pray nor preache in the Churche with their heades couered? What reforma∣tion and order did he make and appoint vnto them, for the more honourable receiuing of the Sacrament, and that partly by writing, and partly by woorde of mouthe, saying: Caetera, cùm venero, disponam, and in his seconde Epistle to the Thessalonians, he saith, Fratres state, & te∣nete traditiones quas didicistis, siue per sermonem, siue per Epistolam nostram.* 1.326 What orders and Decrees did the Apostle Paule make, touching praiyng and preaching vnto the people in tongues vnknowen, and that all wo∣men shoulde keepe silence in the Churche and Congre∣gation? These and many suche other like Lawes, or∣ders, and Decrees, were made for the reformation of the people in the Churche of Christ, by Christes Apo∣stles, by Bishops and priestes, as the successours of them, and that without all commission of any Temporal Ma¦gistrate, Emperour, King, or Prince, Constātinus being the first Christian Emperour, like as I haue saide.

M. Horne.

Your vvhole drifte in this parte is, to proue that Bishoppes and Priestes may visite, geue the holy Ghoste, by the imposition of their handes: and make lavves orders, and decrees to their flockes and cures. Your proufe consisteth in the example of the Apostles, and this is your argument: The Apostles visited, gaue the holy Ghost, and made Lavves, orders, and decrees, vnto their flockes and cures, Ergo, Bishoppes and Priestes, haue authoritie and may make Lavves, visit and geue the holy Ghost to their flockes and cu∣res. The insufficiency of this consequent, doth easely appeare, to those that doo consider the state and condicion of the Apostleship, and compare ther∣vvith the office of a Bishop or Priest. The Apostles did, might, and could doo, many thinges that Bishoppes and Priestes, neither may, nor can do. The matter is more plaine than that needeth any proufe. But as the sequele faileth in forme, so let vs consider the matter, vvhervpon ye grounde the se∣quele, that your frindes may see vvhat foule shiftes ye are driuen to make, for the maintenaūce of an vniust claime. That the Apostles did visite their cures and flockes, you proue by tvvo places of the Actes: in the first place, ye (.603.)* 1.327 feine the Scriptures to say, that it saieth not: for in the eight of the Actes, there is no menciō made of any visitatiō: the other place speaketh only of a (.604.)* 1.328 Scripturely visitatiō, and nothing at al of your Forinsecall or Canon Lavve visitation. The Canon Lavves visitation, is to be exercised by a great number of such persons, as the Scripture (.605.)* 1.329 knovveth not. And the matter vvherabout that visitation is occupied for the moste parte, is directlye (.606.)* 1.330 againste the Scriptures. The personnes that may lavvfullye visite in youre Canon Lavve visitation, are Popes, Le∣gates from the side: Legates sent and borne, Legates and messengers of the Apostolik sea, Patriarches, Archebishoppes, Bishoppes, Archdeacons, Deanes, Archepriestes, Abbottes, and other inferiour personnes hauing iurisdiction. All Arche∣bishoppes whiche are Legates borne, haue authority to visit their prouinces by double right, to wit, by right Legatine, and by right Metropolitane, ād so they may visit twyse in the yere. All these visitours muste beginne their visitation with a so∣lemne Masse of the holy ghost. The Bishoppe and euery ordi∣nary visitour, must beginne his visitation at his Cathedrall

Churche and Chapter. He must come into the Church where he visiteth, and first kneele downe and pray deuoutly, chieflie directing his eies and mind to the place wherein the honou∣rable sacramēt of Christes Body is hiddē and kepte. The matters of the Canō Lavve visitatiō are in parte these. The visitour ought to view diligētly, whether the place wher the Sacramēt is kept, be cleane, wel garnished and close, for the Eucharist, and the holy Chrysme ought to be kept shut vnder locke and key. He must see, that there be great lightes of waxe to geue light in that place, Thē must he visit the place of the holy reliquies, ād of Baptisme. And search diligētly what māner of place it is, ād whēther it be kepte shut. Besides this he muste visit the Aul∣tars and litle Chappelles, and must with his eies viewe the whole Church whether it be cleāly and cleane. Thē he must visit the vesselles and Churche vestymentes, whether they be cleane, and kepte in a cleane place, as they ought to be, and whether the vestimētes be ouermuche worne and brokē, and in case the visitour shal finde suche vestimētes vncleane, rēte, and cōsumed with occupying, he muste burne thē in the fire, and cause the ashes to be buried in some place, whereby ther is no passage. But in any wise let him not suffer (saith Socius) pur∣ses or such like thinges to worldly vse to be made of the co∣pes or tunicles. Last of al, let him suruey the houses and pos∣sessions belonging to the Churche. The Bishop dooth visit also, to bisshop enfantes, and to cōsecrate or hallow Churches. The visitour also shall enquire and examine, whether any mā knowe or beleeue, or that the fame is, that the Sexten, the Treasurer, or the Vesture keeper, hath well and saufly kepte, the vessels, vestimentes, and other thinges or ornamentes of the Churche, as Masse bookes, Grayles, Antiphoners, Le∣gendes, and other thinges appointed to diuine Seruice, and whether any thing moueable, or vnmoueable, be diminished, and by whome, wherefore, whan, and after what sorte, whe∣ther they be diligently present at the Dirigees for the dead. And whether the vesture keeper or Sexten, keepe warelie and

cleanly the Churche, the Eucharist, the Reliques, the Fount, the Churchyardes, and suche other things. And he shal exa∣mine the Priestes in the countrie in saying of their Masses.

But lette euerye Visitour vnderstande (saith mine Authour) that same the greatest question or controuersie which was betwixt three rurall Personnes or Priestes: vvherof tvvo of them stroue about the vvoordes of Consecration, the one affirming, that the vvordes are to be pronounced thus: Hoc est corpus meus: the other, Hoc est corpus (I thinke he should haue said corpum) me∣um. These tvvo chose a thirde Prieste, vvho vvas taken to be better learned, to be arbitour, and to decide this high question: vvhose ansvvere vvas, that he him selfe stoode euer doubtfull in this question: and therfore in steede of these vvordes of con∣secration, did alvvaies vse to saye one Pater noster. Further∣more the Visitour must enquire, vvhether the laity make their confession once in the yeare, and receiue the Euchariste at Easter. And vvhether they be slovve, or denie to paie their tythes and fruites. The Archebisshoppe must in visiting any of his Suffraganes, exactly enquire and examine the Canons and Clerkes of the Cathedrall Churche, vvhether they knovv, beleue, or that the fame is, that the Bisshop hath couered or borne vvith some mens faultes for money, or other temporall commoditie. Can you finde in the Scriptures any one of these Visitours, or anie one of these vveightie matters enquired of, by Peter, Iohn, Paule, Sylas, Barnabas, or by any of the Apostles in their Visitations, vvhich vvere Scripturely visitations? No surely, it is not possible: For these Idolatrous (.607.)* 1.331 vanities, are manifestlie repugnaunt to the Holie Scriptures.

Amongest all the rable of these Canon Lavve visitours, ye can not finde in the Scriptures, not so muche as the bare Title of (.608.)* 1.332 one of them, one∣lesse it be of a Bisshoppe: vvhiche name applied to the man, as the Scrip∣tures describeth the man, that is called to that office, can no (.609.)* 1.333 more agree vvith a Cannon Lavve Bisshoppe, then vvith the Ciuill Lavve Bis∣shoppe, vvhose office vvas, as it is sette foorthe in the Digestes, to haue the rule and ouersighte of all maner of victualles in the Citties, as it vvere the chiefe Clerke of the markets. As the matter of the Apostles visitations

standeth directly (.610.)* 1.334 against the greatest parte of the matter vvhereabout your Popish or Canon Lavve visitation is exerci∣sed: Euen so the holy Scripture that you auouche, for the geuing of the holie Ghoste, maketh (.611.)* 1.335 nothing at all to proue your purpose. For Saint Luke in that place speaketh (.612.)* 1.336 not of an ordinarie povver, that shoulde remaine in the ministers of the Churche for euer, but of a speciall gifte to vvorke miracles, and to geue that povver to others, vvhiche shoulde continue but for the time vvhiles Christes Churche vvas to be erected, and the vvoord to be sounded through the vvorlde: And therefore Chry∣sostome saieth: That this gift pertained onely to the Apostles. For (saieth he) the Conuertes in Samaria had receiued before Peter and Iohn came, the spirit of Remission of Sinnes: But the spirite of Myracles, that is, the gift of tongues, healing, propheci∣ing, and suche like, vvhich are the giftes of the holie Ghoste, and therefore are called the Holie Ghoste, they had not as yet recei∣ued. There vvere many that by the povver of Goddes Spirite coulde vvorke miracles, but to geaue this povver to others, none coulde doe but the Apostles. For that vvas propre and onelye in them. Marke novve the sequele of your allegation for proufe of your purpose: Thus (.613.)* 1.337 you argue: the Apostles gaue by the imposition of their handes, to the Samaritanes, the giftes of Healing, Prophecying, of Tongues, &c. Therefore euerye Bis∣shop and Priest hath povver to geue the same gifts to their flocks and cures. There vvas neuer none so blind or so ignorantly brought vp in your cures, belonging to the Abbey of VVestminster, but that did vvel perceiue, that neither your Bisshops, Abbottes, or Priests, had or could doe any such feate. They like Apes, imitated the outvvarde signe or ceremonie, but the invvard grace they vvanted.

Stapleton.

In this parte M. Fekenham prosequuteth his proufe out of the newe Testamente, alleaging for his purpose manye places thereof. As of Peter and Iohn that went into Samaria

to visite the Christians there, to confirme them in fayth, and to geue them the holy Ghoste by the imposition of their hands. Of Paulus and Barnabas that visited many contries, commaun∣ding the Christians there to kepe the commaundements of the Apostles and priests: with certaine orders and lawes made by S. Paule. But al this M. Horn thinketh may be wiped a∣way with one general answer of an insufficiēt consequēcy: for that the Apostles did and could do many things that bi∣shops and priests neither may, nor can doe nowe: I wil not striue with you M. Horne what the Apostles did in other thinges, but yf they practised any iurisdiction in makinge of Lawes, in visiting,* 1.338 in reforming without the cōmissiō of any Laicall authority: then is M. Fekenhās argument good and sufficient. Thē haue we the practise of the Apostles and pri∣matiue Church against this your newe Paradoxe. Thē hath M. Fekēhā wrapped you vp also ād meshed you in a fowle contradiction, as one that affirmeth the quite contrary dy∣uerse tymes before.* 1.339

And yet because ye shal not carry ād steale away the mat¦ter so, but be more fully answered, I say ther was an ordina∣ry, ād ther was also an extraordinary authority in the Apo∣stles. The ordinary authority of the Apostles (in the which we are now) remaineth at this day ād shal remain for euer in the Church, in the bishops their successours. The extraordi∣nary authority either died with thē, or at lest cā not be vsu∣ally pleaded vpō. The lyke argumēt as ye make here, against the authority ād iurisdictiō of bishops,* 1.340 M. Iewel ād your fel∣lowes make against the Pope, that thoughe S. Peter were head of the whole Church and was assured by the promisse of Christ that prayed for him, that his fayth shulde not fayle, yet can not al his successours the Popes challenge the same

being a special prerogatiue gratiously geuē to him. But here we must vnderstād, that Peter was priuileged for his owne person, and he was priuileged also, in respect, of the cōmon weale of the whole Church. And therfore yf we respect S. Peters person, the persō of his successor is not so priuileged, but he may fal and erre in his own priuat opiniō and iudge∣mēt. But if we respect the whole Church, whereof he hath the rule, then we say he can not erre in any decree or order that he shal publikely make for any matter of faith: Least by this his opē errour the whole Church fal also into the same. The prouidēce of God (which a Diuine shuld alwaies haue an eie vnto) suffreth not such an incōueniēce in his Church.

Again, the Apostles had personal priuileges of more am∣ple grace, thē their successours haue. And therfore by theis wordes, what so euer, ye shall bynde vppon the earth &c. And by those other, as my father sent me, so I send you: they had authority eche of them to preach throughout the whole world and in whatsoeuer part therof: ād in this respect they were equal with S. Peter: but their successours at Alexan∣dria, Antiochia, ād Ephesus do not succede to thē, nor inioy this extraordinary powre of preaching ād teachīg through out the world, ād euery part therof, but the ordinary ōly ād vsual power within their own Diocesse or Patriarchship. The said extraordinary authority remaynīg with the popes only as the successours of S. Peter: who was head of the A∣postles (not in the Apostleship for in that all the Apostles were equall) but in bishoply Iurisdiction. After lyke sort the Apostles had a certain peerlesse authority to speak in diuers tongs, to prophecy, to reuiue the dead, to heale the sicke, to cast out diuels, and to do many other miracles. This power doth not descēd to al their successours ordinately, but now and thē to some certain, to whō it pleaseth God, to dispēce

these graciouse gifts vnto. As he hath don to many a blessed bishop syth the apostles time, ād to many other euen in our daies, as to the blessed Fathers of the society of Iesus, in cō∣uerting the newe found Indiās frō paganisme to the faith of Christ, and as also to our holy Father the Pope that nowe liueth (as we are most certainly informed) God hath abun∣dātly geuē this heauēly gift of workīg miracles. But we are out of this case: we reasō of an vsual ād ordinary power that the apostles successors must nedes haue, and haue as wel as they, for the necessary gouernement of his Churche. As to preach to the flocke of Christ, to gouern ād to direct thē,* 1.341 by good orders ād lawes, to reform the offendours, to excōmu¦nicat the disobedient to improue, rebuke, or exhort with al lōg suffering, ād good doctrin, to visit thē, to correct the vn¦quiet, to cōfort the feble mīded, to forbeare ād receiue the weak, ād to haue a cōtinual paciēce in al mē: By imposition of hāds to geue holy orders in the sacramēt of cōfirmatiō (as Peter and Iohn the apostles did when they visited Samaria) with many other things belōging ordinarily to all bisshops.* 1.342 Nay saith M. Horne, ther is no mentiō made of visitatiō in the eight of the Actes. What shal we trifle cōcerning the word visitatiō, if it be not ther, in case the thīg it self be there? Ve∣rely if the very word haue any force with you M. Horne, you haue it plain in the next allegatiō of M. Fekenhā out of the .15. of the Actes: where S. Paule said to Barnabas, Let vs visite our brethern, &c aet. But I pray you tell vs,* 1.343 why were Peter and Iohn sent into Samaria, but to confirme the Sa∣maritanes, and to geue the Sacramente of confirma∣tion to those that were latelie baptized? This Sacrament of Confirmation is one of the principall thynges, the whiche the Bisshoppes do vse in their visitation. Here

M. Horne runneth to his olde shift yet ons againe, and saith here was no sacrament geuen, neither any holy Ghost at al. But the spirite of miracles, as the gifte of tonges, of healing, prophecying, and such like, which are the gifts of the holy ghost, and therefore called the holy Ghost. And then doth M. Horne ieste at this sequele. The Apostles gaue these giftes. Ergo eue∣ry priest and bisshop may geue them nowe. And then he ad∣deth for his pleasure, that there was neuer any monke in the Abbay of Westminster so ignorantly brought vp, but knewe wel inough, that the bisshops could do no such feate. Truth it is, that they receiued the holy Ghost, and these outwarde giftes withal at their confirmation.* 1.344 And as the Apostles only by the imposition of handes gaue these giftes, as ye confesse: so Confirmation to this day perteineth to the bisshops on∣ly, that represente the Apostles. Nowe that confirmation is no sacrament, or that the holy ghost is not thereby geuen,* 1.345 neither Chrysostomus whome ye recite, nor any other auncient authour auoucheth. And that those that were baptized were afterward cō∣firmed by the bisshop, ād receiued the holy Ghost, when there were no visible signes, S. Hierome plainely testifieth. And S. Augustine confesseth, it is a Sacrament, as Baptisme is. Of this holy Ghost that is geuen without any outward miracles, spea∣keth M. Fekenham, and no one worde of miracles. Wherefore this misshapen argument that ye bring forth, is yours, and not his. To the ouerthrowe of of the which folishe fonde argument I aunswere, that there was neuer none so blinde or ignorantly brought vp in the monastery of Westminster, that could not well perceyue, that this is a very il fauo∣red

kinde of reasoning, and such as was neuer vsed amonge the Catholikes.

As for his answere to M. Fekēham touching the second allegation, out of the .15. of the Actes, is such as is mete for such a ghospelling prelate: that is, to leaue reasoning, and to fal to rayling, and so to elude his Readers expectation, and the argument: that he is not, nor euer shalbe able to answere. Yet like a cunning Diuine and a verie skilfull visitour,* 1.346 he teacheth vs, that there are two visitations, the one a scrip∣turely, the other a forinsecall or a canon lawe visitation. Then haue we a longe lesson out of one Socius, he shoulde haue sayde Socinus, what persons may visite, and what matters they owght to enquire vppon in their visitation. And in effecte he doth nothing else in all this his extraua∣gant declaration, but mocke, and mowe: and like the di∣uelles Iacke anapes potteth at the good rites, customes and vsages of the Catholike Churche, and at the blessed sa∣crament to. And solaceth him selfe pleasantly, and maketh ioly sporte at poore Sir Iohn lacke Latin: that could not tell whether he should say Corpum meum, or Corpus meus. At length he concludeth full solemnelie, that neither the persons that exercise the canonicall visitation, nor the matters there enquired of, can be founde in scripture, no not the bare title of any of these visitours, vnlesse it be a Bisshoppe. And yet these canon Lawe Bisshoppes, he will not haue called bisshoppes neither: vnlesse it be, for that they may be ciuill Lawe Bisshops: that is asmuche to say,* 1.347 as clerkes of the market. Howe thinke you good readers? Is not Maister Fekenham his argument grounded vpon the plaine scriptures and doinges of S. Paule, which did visite the Christians, and commaunded them to kepe the Lawes and

ordinaunces that the Apostles had made, without any laical commission, very scripturely and prelatelyke of this greate scriptured man soluted? Thinke you, that this man hath any reuerence to God, any regard either to his matter, or to his Reader? Or thinke you, that this man lacketh not as much witte, as he doth vertue, learning, religion, and true deuotion, that with his malice to putte out one eie of the Catholikes, putteth out both his owne eies? and that can tell no faulte of the Catholikes, but that the same re∣doundeth double or treble against him self and his affinitie? Amonge all the rable (as M. Horne termeth them) of the canon Lawe visitours, he can not finde as much as the bare ti∣tle of any of them in scripture. Seing this man is so precise and peremptory in his termes, we wil see whether we can finde any of them either in expresse termes, or at the least in equiualent.* 1.348 In dede this worde Papa is not founde there, but his equiualent Pater is founde there. Legates we fynde store, though not with such precise termes as ye adioyne, as speaking of Legates sent and borne. The woorde Pa∣triarche is ofte in scripture: Bisshoppes we fynde, Deacons we fynde, priests we fynde. Therefore this is but a grosse and a rude Rhetorike, to fynde faulte with the name of Archebisshop, Archedeacon, and Archpriest, which signi∣fieth no more then the chiefe of the bisshoppes, deacons or Priestes. But in case you wil no better beare with Legates borne, and Archebisshops, you shal quite beare away both the audience, and the Arches, and the Courte of preroga∣tiue, and the Archbisshoprik withal of Canterbury. As for Deanes, who are called in Latin Decani, yea and Abbats to, for Abba and Abbas is al one, we finde in scripture. And I pray you what persons be the chief visitours nowe in En∣gland,

but such as beare the names, that ye say, can not be found in scripture, as Archbisshops, Bisshops, Archdeacons, and Deanes? And you M. Horn that haue ben such a solēne visitour, first for the Quenes M. and then in your own pre∣tensed Diocese, and in the Vniuersity of Oxford, think you that a man may fynd your name or the name, of your visi∣tourship in any place of the Bible? And yf we may not find it there, then by your own rule, when ye come next in visi∣tatiō to Oxford, the schollers may fynd some prety excep∣tiō against you. Thus you see good readers, I am fain to play the child, with this childishe Prelate.* 1.349 Let vs now leaue the names and goe to the matter of your visitatiō that ye kepe now a dayes. Shall we find nothing there but scripturely matters? I pray you tel me then good M. Horne, in what scripture ye find it, I will not say, that a monke, a nunne, a priest or bishop may marie (for I am sure scripture is against it, cōdēning the frailest kind of womē for maryīg after their vowe) but in what scripture find you it, that (in case their mariage be lawful) the priest or deacō shal not marie, without the aduice or allowance had vpō good examination by the bis∣shop of the same diocesse, and two Iustices of the peace of the saide shere? And that the mariages of Bisshoppes must be al∣lowed by the Metropolitane, and the Queenes highnes com∣missioners? Why? Are ye, that should be the Fathers of the realm now come to this point, that for lacke of your dis∣cretion, ye must be made wardes and haue your gardons? They that be vnder their fathers rule, by ciuill Lawe can not marrye withowt their Fathers consent: but by the same Lawe a Bisshoppe is fortwith exempted and acqui∣ted from all iurisdiction, that his Father hadde before vp∣pon him. But ye contrarie wise are brought vnder the iu∣risdiction

of euery meane gentleman: and abridged of that liberty of mariage, that euery poore plowghman hath. And yet is this (as absurde as yt is) an Iniunction belonging to your newe Laicall visitation. It were a matter for a iuste volume, yf I should here prosequute your other scripturely matters, that ye haue sette forth in your visitations: espe∣cially in your late visitation by your deare Chaunceler and sonne exercised at the Newe Colledge in Oxforde: who proposed there to be subscribed a rablemente of blaspe∣mouse and hereticall articles, a number of them beinge as scripturely matters, as this proposition, is either scripture∣lyke or grammarlyke:* 1.350 Regina est vnicus & supremus guber∣nator regni in causis Ecclesiasticis & temporalibus. But of this your clerkely grāmar we haue had much experiēce in this your answere. Amende: Amēde for shame your barbarouse Latin, and put in vnica & suprema gubernatrix, if ye will nedes maintayn the propositiō: which yet doth not so much contrary the rules of grammar, as it doth the rules of Chri∣stian religiō. And beare with poore Sir Iohn, and his corpus meus, which is as good Latin (Sir Robert) as your Reginae gubernator vnicus, & caet. And be not so harde as ye are in your iniunctions, to exclude from all cure or spirituall fun∣ction, suche as of late Dayes were made priestes other∣wise vtterly vnlearned as ye say, but that they coulde reade to say mattins and masse. For yf ye be so straite laced to your ministers, ye are lyke to leaue but a fewe: and to haue the most parte of your cures vnfurnished, and serue the parish Churches your selfe. For a greate parte, yea and a notable number of your ministers can not reade Latin. And ther∣fore M. Nowell, beinge in his last booke against M. Dor∣man, in the same vayne that you here are M. Horn, and sett

in a pelting chafe, with an inuincible place out of S. Am∣brose, ruffling in his lusty rhetorike, against poore Sir Iohns, as you do here, durst not yet to cal thē Sir Iohn lacke latins,* 1.351 but ful prouidently called thē, Sir Iohn lacke lerning. Bicause forsothe he sawe full wel, that his felowe Ministres were Sir Iohn lacke latins, as well as poore priestes. Mary yet per∣haps in his conceyt, they lacked not lerninge, bicause they can reade in the English bible. Therefore he thought it the surest to call ignorant priestes, Sir Iohn lacke lerninge, not Sir Iohn lacke latins. This point of wisedome you may M. Horne lerne hereafter of M. Nowel, to saue the honesty of your Sir Iohn lacke latins, swarming nowe as thicke in England as euer they did before. Yea such preachers fyll the most parte of your pulpittes, and the eares and hearts of the people with much heresie,* 1.352 and setteth them at a lewde licentiouse liberty to speake what they will, and do what they liste. And here it commeth to my mind, that was credibly tolde me touching one of theis your mi∣nistring preachers, that not many yeares sythens came to a parish within the Diocesse of Winchester to preach: And being demaunded his Licence did exhibite it, but beinge required before the people to reade yt, could not: wher∣vppon the people fell into such a lawghter, that our prea∣cher had no great luste, to shewe his cunning there, but full slily shronke away from them, and stole away with his clerkly sermon that he thought to haue made there.* 1.353 And wherein I pray you resteth a greate parte of your newe clergy, but in butchers, Cookes, Catchpoules, and Coblers, Diers, and Dawbers, fellons carrying their marke in theire hande in steade of a shauen crowne, fissher men, gunners, harpers, Innekepers, Merchauntes and Mari∣ners,

Netmakers,* 1.354 potters, potycaries, and porters of Be∣linsgate, pynners, pedlers, ruffling ruffins, sadlers, sheermen, and shepherds, tanners, tilers, tinckers, trumpeters, weauers, whery men & caet. Demaunde of theis fresh clerks M. Horn at your next visitation, whether it must be read corpus me∣um, or corpus meus, And see, whether any of them can re∣solue his felowes better, then the priest, you speake of did, that being him self doutful, vsed (as you say) his Pater noster, in stede of the words of consecration. Wil they not trowe you, make answer, as a Minister in M. Iewels dyocese did? who in a visitatiō being apposed for trial of his latin tōgue, what case was Decen••er, answered, that he thanked God highly, that he had neuer learned that Romish ād Papisticall latin tongue? But what Latin shal a mā loke for at such mēs hands? yea or what honesty either? To describe the dissolut and naughty viciouse lyfe, of your ministers, would fill vp a booke of a good quātity, ād the hearers eares with to much lothsomnes. I coulde here rippe vppe a number of dete∣stable partes,* 1.355 and some of them playde in your pretensed Diocese: especially of William Webbe the trumpetour and minister of Otterborne nighe to Winchester: who hauing a Ghospelling yokemate of his owne, tawghte a yonge mayden in the Churche to singe the holy Geneuical psal∣mes, and as he corrupted her sowle with wicked heresy, so he defyled her body with suche lewde lechery, that he was faine to flee the parish for shame. And yet as I here say he is become at London an holy minister againe. I wil for∣beare to lade your honest eares (good reader) with any moe such dishonest and sluttish stories, wherof we haue, the more pity, to much plenty. Theis ād such like are the wic∣ked king Hieroboams ministers, the which falling from the

true Church of Hierusalem into idolatry, as you and your fellowes are fallen into heresy (which is also in scripture called idolatrie) made the lowest of the people,* 1.356 and such as were not of the tribe of Leuie peculiarlie and onelye by God appoin∣ted, his priests. Was not, I beseache yow M. Horne, the dis∣order of theis and other, both in theire lyuinge and prea∣ching suche, that the Quenes Maiesty of her graciouse goodnes, caused a number of Licences geuen them to preach, to be called in againe? For all that ye haue so ofte visited, get yow out ones agayne in visitation M. Horne and amend your owne people, and your owne selfe prin∣cipallie, accordinge to the rules of the holy scripture, and then call your visitation a scripturely visitation, and the other among the Catholyks nothing but a forinsecall and a canonicall visitation. Suerly yt is a meruelouse Ghos∣pell, that ye haue of late broched, which besides moste detestable heresies, importeth such a breach and dissolution of all honest and vertuouse lyuing, that your owne Apo∣stle Luther was fayne to call vppon the Duke of Saxony, to make visitation vppon visitation for reformation.* 1.357 And fayne to crye out, that his newe Ghospellinge children were worse then euer they were vnder the pope: yea tenne tymes worse then the Sodomites. Therefore talke as holily as ye will, of your scripturely visitations, the truthe ys, they are as dyrecte contrary to scripture,* 1.358 as darcknes ys to lighte, and they are the very nurseries of all heresyes and licentiouse lyuing. And shortly, but with∣all truely to conclude, how scripturely they are, I say ye cā no better iustify your visitations and other your doings by scripture, thē the deuil him self could iustifie his allegation: bringing forth scripture, not to the poore simple and vn∣lettered

people as you doe,* 1.359 but to Christ him self: willing him to cast him self down frō the pinacle of the tēple, with scriptum est enim, for it is writen: sayth the deuill. And what is the scope of all your doynges and preachinges to the people, but mitte te deorsum? Cast thy self headlong downe from the highe towre of the lyghtsome catholyke fayth into the lowe darke Dongeon, of all deuelishe heresie? From the highe mounte of a vertuouse and an austere lyfe, in to the lowe vale of all licentiouse and dissolute behauiour? What is all your preaching, but downe, downe, downe with holy bread, holy water, with all the holy ceremonies in baptisme, and in the other sacramentes, with fastinge, with nighte prayer, with all prayer to be made for owre fathers or frendes sowles, or to the bles∣sed Virgin Mary, and to all other Hallowes, with al Aul∣ters,* 1.360 with masse, yea and with the blessed body of Christ in the Sacramente: which hath bene moste vilanously defiled not onely by blasphemous bokes and sermons, but most wickedly taken from the aulter,* 1.361 and moste horribly yea and that in our most famouse Vniuersity, conculced with the wicked feete of one of your Ghospellinge prea∣chers? And by what warrant, ye may sette forth in your so scripturely visitations this your hereticall doctrine a∣gainst the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacramēt I knowe not. The playne and open wordes of scripture lye manifestly againste yow with, hoc est corpus meum: Ge∣nerall Councells haue determined againste yow: Priuate councels, and amongs other our constitutions prouinciall, determine against yow: and remaine yet in force, euen by the lawes of the Realm, being by no Act of parliamēt taken away. But contrary wise suche as vnreuerently speake a∣gainst

it,* 1.362 are by Acte of parliament adiudged to imprison∣mēt, and to a fine to be made at the Princes pleasure. Brief∣ly the faith of the whole Churche stādeth against you. Yea M. Cheney one of your owne protestant Bisshops in open parliament of late dayes stode against you. Your synodicall and heretical articles, by the which ye would haue this, and other heresies confirmed, are reiected. Yea Luther him self full solemply proclaymeth you all heretiks. How can yt thē be, that your and your fellowes visitations, in the which ye haue set forth such a false doctrin repugnāt to al these, shalbe yet called a scripturely visitation? No, no M. Horne, for all your pecocks tayle glistering with goodly and scripturely talke, we perceyue your filthie heresie wel inough, when we loke vpon your fowle feete. Awaye, away with these painted woordes, wherwith men wil not alwaies be made fooles: nor will take your visitations to be scripturely, as is this, that ye here alleage, made by the blessed Apostles. Which thing though I cā not, nor wil deny:* 1.363 yet yf I should take vpon me the euāgelical person of M. Iewel, or of your Apostle Martin Luther, or your owne either, methinke the Gētils might aswel haue found fault with the Apostles de∣cree made and set forth by them afterward in their visitatiōs: as your said Apostle doth against the Councel of Trent and others, or as ye doe against the blessed bisshop and Martyr Bonifacius, for whome we haue alredy answered. They might haue said: ye restraine our Euangelicall liberty, and yet ye bring not one woord of scripture to confirme your decree withall. For though S. Iames brought forth a testi∣mony out of the Prophet Amos, yet yt toucheth nothinge the matter there concluded. Then might they haue said, why Syrs, what meane you, will ye haue vs to be Iewishe

againe, in forbearing of puddings and thinges strangled? Why doe ye forbidde vs to eate of such meates, as are of∣fered to the idolles? We doe wel knowe, that they are no Goddes, and the meate is neuer a whit the worse: and our Maister Christ hath taught vs, that it is not that, that entreth by the mouth, but that, that goeth from the mouth that cō∣tamineth and defileth the man. This and much more out of the principles of Luthers ghospell they might haue saide to the Apostles: and as truely as Luther and your fellowes alleage these and the like thinges, against the Lawes of the Churche, against vnwriten verities, against fasting daies, and otherwise. Or as ye alleage the like to de••ace our holy vertuouse countremā Bonifacius and Augustinus.* 1.364 But it is high tyme to breake of our scripturely visitatis, and to set vpon other matters.

M. Horne. The .168. Diuision. pag. 114. a.

Touching the thirde part of your proufe, vvhereby yee conclude, that bis∣shops and Priests make Lavves, orders, and decrees, to their flocks and cures, because the Apostles so did, as you say: Although I neede make none other ansvvere, then to deny your argumēt, vvhich you can by no arte (.6••4.)* 1.365 main∣teyne, the insufficiency vvhereof is manifest, to those that haue but a little skil, either in Logike or Diuinity: Yet I vvil briefly cōsider the places, vvher∣vpon you grounde this mishapen sequele, that the vnskilful may see, hovve little they make for your purpose. After that S. Paule had founded the Churche of Corinthe, and had brought them to Christ through the prea∣chinge of the Ghospell, there sprange vp amongest them in his absence many vices and offences, contrary to the Doctrine he had taught, and the Godly ad∣monitions, that he had geuen vnto them: vvherefore being aduertised there∣of, he vvrote his Epistle vnto that Churche, vvherein he reproueth their faultes, partely in general, and partely in spectal: And in the ende of the tenth Chapiter, concludeth vvith this General admonition, that All thīgs be done without offence, and to the Glory of God. In the .xi. Chapiter, he reproueth certeine faultes in especial, cōmitted by them in their

publique assemblies, and Churche meetinges; contrary to this generall admo∣nition, and contrary to that he had taught them in speciall, touchinge their honest and comely behauiour in their publique praier, preaching, and com∣municating in Christes Sacramentes, vvhich of all other thinges ought chief∣ly to be so done, as thereby God may be glorified, and al offences es••hu••d. To this ende S. Paule had taught the Corinthes, that in these publique and ho∣ly exercises, it is most seemely, that men prophecy and pray hare headed: Cō∣traryvvise vvemen, not vvithout their heades couered. Many obserued this comelynesse in prayer and propheciyng, as Paule had taught them: O∣thers contentiously did vvithstande and gainesay the same, as an order that Paule had deuised, and brought in of his ovvne deuise, besides Gods vvoorde, as you also (.615.)* 1.366 Imagine that Paule made this order besides the Gospel, of his ovvne authority, vvherevvith to binde the Corinthes. To aunsvvere both the contentious Phi∣losophers, than amongest the Corinthes, and the superstitious Pa¦pistes, novve in (.616.)* 1.367 lyke sorte molestinge the Christians, S. Paule proueth, that this comelynes is grounded vppon Gods or∣dinaunce, and not a Lavve nevvely deuised of his ovvne au∣thoritie besides the Gospell. This is his proufe, the man by Goddes ordinaunce hath the superioritye, and the vvoman must be in subiection. God hath appointed for them both, signes and tokens of this dominion and subiection, He hath ordeyned, that man in token of superioritie, shoulde haue hi•• head vncouered: as contraryvvise the vvoman, in token of subiection, to haue her head couered.

Therefore, if man laye avvay that signe and token of dominiō vvhich God hath ordeined for him to vse, and taketh vpon him the signe and badge of subiection, he dishonoureth God his head, and breaketh his or∣dinance. And so the vvomā, if shee leaue of the couerture of her head vvhich God had geuen to her, to be vvorne as a token and badge of her subiection, and taketh vpon her the signe of superiority, she dishonoreth her head, and breaketh Gods ordinaūce. S. Paule addeth an other reason, vvherby he pro∣ueth, that this vvas no Lavv made by him to the Corinthes. Nature, saith he, hath taught you this comely order. If this vvere a Lavve and Decree of na∣ture, it vvas not S. Paules deuise besides Gods vvoorde. S. Ambrose vppon

this place saith, that S. Paule spake these woordes, accor∣ding to (.617.)* 1.368 Gods Lawe, which forbiddeth (saith he) the man to weare his heare. Chrysostome affirmeth this to be an ordinaunce of nature. But, saith he, whan I speake of nature, I meane of God, who is the authour of nature. So that it is manifest by S. Paules ovvn proufes in defence of that he had taught, and by the vvitnesse of S. Ambrose and Chrysostom, that the man to be bareheaded, and the vvoman couered, vvas (.618.)* 1.369 not a Lavve, order and decree, made by S. Paule to the Corinthes, as you vntruly fable, but Gods ordinaunce, made plain, set forth, and taught by him, that all thinges might be don in the Churche in comely order, to Gods glory. Of like sorte vvas the re∣formation and order: vvhereof you speake about the more vvorthy receiuing the Lordes Supper. The Apostle maketh thereaboute no nevve Lavve, order, or decree, besides (.619.)* 1.370 the Ghospell, but re∣proueth the Corinthians, for that they did not about the receipte thereof, obserue the lavve of the Gospell: He blameth them in ge∣neral, that their Churche assemblies vvere not to the encrease, but rather to the decrease of vertue in thē selues: He reproueth thē that in stead of brothlery loue, vnity, and concorde, there vvas Cont••mpte, Schisme, and dis∣sension amongest them: He rebuketh them, for that they made that Supper Priuate, vvhich the Lorde him selfe had made, and instituted to be commō: He reprehendeth them for Drunkennesse, and that vvith the contempte of the poore: And he sharpely shaketh them vp, for that they abuse the Church, con∣temning the right vse thereof. Is not this Christes Lavve, that the people should encrease in vertue? Is not this Christes commaundement, that the Christians should liue in brotherly loue, vnitye, and concorde? Is not this Christes Institution, that his Supper should be cōmon, and not Pryuat? Doth not Christes lavv condēne Drunkerdes, and contempte of the poore? And is not this Gods decree, that his house should not be prophaned or abused? If these be Gods ordinances, as you can not deny them to be, than are they (.620.)* 1.371 not Paules lavves, orders, or decrees, neither by vvriting or vvorde of mouthe: othervvise than that Paule vvas Gods mouth and scribe, to vtter, not his ovvne lavves besides the Ghospell, but Gods ordinaunces comprehended vvithin his Ghospell. So that vvhether being presente, he taught them by

vvorde, or being absent by vvriting, he neither vvritte nor spake, other then he had * 1.372 receiued of the Lord. He promised, say you, to dispose other things at his comming. It is true, but not othervvise then he did these aboue mentio∣ned. He exhorteth, say you, the Thessaloniās, to abide in the traditions, vvhich they had learned by vvoorde or by vvriting. Yee say truth: but he dothe not therby binde them to this, as to a lavve, order, or decree, made by him be∣sides the Ghospell: but hee monisheth them, as S. Ambrose expoundeth his meaning. To stand fast, continue, and perseuere in the tradition of the Gospell. So that the traditions he speaketh of, are not other then the Doctrine of the (.621.)* 1.373 Ghospel.

I maruaile not, that ye (.622.)* 1.374 misreporte Sainte Paule, say∣ing that he made orders and decrees, touching praying and prea∣ching vnto the people in tongues vnknovven, and that all vve∣men should keepe silence in the Churche and congregation, for it may seeme, yee neuer readde the place, but tooke it, as you heard it reported. If you had readde the place, you might haue seene vvith your ovvne eyes, that S. Paule speaketh no vvhitte of that matter in the thirteenth, as yee vntruely auouche: and in the fourtenth you should haue perceiued, that he in plaine speach pro∣ueth you a lyar: For that he (.623.)* 1.375 denieth that these vvere his orders or decrees, affirming them to be the Lords commaunde∣mentes, and so dothe Theophilact. Gloss. ordinar. and Lyra vvitnesse also vvith Paule, testifying that these vvere his vvords and meaning. These places thus rightly considered, it may easi∣lie appear•• vnto the moste vnskilful, hovv litle (.624.)* 1.376 your pur∣pose is helpen by them, and that these groundes doe saile you: So that your vvhole shift being sifted, is founde naughte, bothe in matter and fourme.

M. Horne.

Three other places remaine of M. Fekenhās allegatiō. The first, but the .3. in order, that men should pray and prophecy

(that is,* 1.377 preache or expounde scripture) theire heades vn∣couered: and that the womē should pray with their heades couered. The second is of such orders as the Apostle Paule ordeyned touching the holy Sacrament of the Eucharistia. The thirde, that he ordeined manie thinges aswell by wri∣ting, as withowt writing, and in all this seaking for no cō∣mission at any lay mans hand. To the two first M. Horne saieth, that they were no lawes of Paules made by his au∣thority besides the ghospel to binde the Corinthians as M. Fekēham imagineth, but they were Gods own ordinaūce. For God had so ordeined to signifie the superiority in the man, and subiection in the woman: and yt was the very law of nature. And for the .2. point he did ordein no new thing, but did set forth onely Gods owne lawes: and that is, that his supper should be common, and not priuate. In condem∣ning also according to Gods lawe drunckerds, and the cō∣tempte of the poore and such as against Gods decree pro∣phaned or abused his house. And S. Paule him self denieth, that theis were his orders or decrees, but saieth they were the Lords commaundements. And to the thirde he saieth, that whether S. Paule taught by writing or by worde, he taught nothing, but that he receiued of the Lorde: neither for any promise he made to dispose things at his ••••mming, did he dispose any thing otherwise then he receiuid of the Lorde. For al this your solemne answere, ye haue soluted M. Fekenhams argumente neuer a whit: which doth not contende in this place, whether this ordinaunce may be called properly Paules or Gods ordināce, or whether they were beside the ghospel or no, or what kinde of traditions they were that Paule taught. The argument resteth in this, that theis lawes, orders, and decrees, were set forth, pub∣lished

and diuulged, yea put in execution by visitatiōs, and otherwise without any warrāt of ciuil prīce. Neither doth M. Fekenhā say, that theis ordinaunces were made besides the ghospel, and deliuered to the Corinthians, as ye say he ima∣gineth. Your self M. Horne doe but dreame this: for those words of M. Fekenhā, of decrees made beside the gospel are re¦ferred to the lawes made by the Apostles in their synod, not to the orders apointed to the Corinthiās. And to those decrees of the Apostles you haue answered neuer a word, but with a shorte vntrue answere, of a scripturelike and an vnscripturelyke visitation, and a longe bible bable againste the order of such visitation as the Catholik Church vseth, you haue trained your Reader with idle talke,* 1.378 nothing to the purpose. By a like craft ye make yt the thirde pointe in M. Fekenham that, which he speaketh of lawes and orders made by the Apostles, where yt was his second allegation as yet by you vnanswered, but altogether vnder the visour of a scripturely visitation, dissembled. For there ye sawe ful wel ye were so mette withall, and so strained, that ye had no sterting hole, vnlesse ye woulde say, that yt was Gods lawe in the newe testament, that Christian mē should eate neither puddīgs, nor any thing strāgled: which ye thought belike to be a great incōuenience, and therfore ful closely, and in greate hucker mucker, ye passed yt ouer. And yet might ye haue freshely reasoned the matter therto, yf your stomacke would haue serued you with telling vs: visum est spiritui sancto & nobis. I•• semeth to the holy Ghost and to vs. And is not this Gods lawe thē also good M. Horne? This geare I perceiue your weake stomacke could not wel di∣gest. For yf yt could, and you withal could digest orderlie, plainely, and truely any good answeare, ye should haue at

length answered your selfe: and shoulde haue founde yt as true, that the ordināces cōcerning the head couered or vn∣couered,* 1.379 and cōcerning the blessed Sacramēt, be ād may as wel be called the ordināces or cōmaundemēts of S. Paule, as the other are called praecepta Apostolorū: the cōmaunde∣mēts of the Apostles. And what should we reason longe in this matter,* 1.380 seing that S. Paule him selfe calleth theis praece∣pta mea: my precepts, or cōmaundements? And sicut tradidi vobis,* 1.381 as I haue deliuered vnto you? And doth not S. Paule say plainely, that he ordayned to the Churches of Galatia Col∣lets or gatheringes of Almes to be made euery Sonday? And saieth he not of him selfe, that he gaue precepts to the Thessa∣lonians? Which yet he writeth not in his epistles, but refer∣reth thē to their former knowledge of deliuered doctrine by word of mouthe. Otherwise yf ye wil so precisely vrge the matter, we must now no lōger cal the old law, the law of Moses: we must no lōger name the prophecies of Hiere∣mie,* 1.382 Ezechiel, or Daniel: no more the ghospel of S. Math. S. Luke, S. Mark, or S. Iohn we must no lōger say, the sword of God and of Gedeō: nor the people belieued God and his seruante Moses. But, God be thāked, these things wil stande together wel inough with a good cōstructiō, and by a diuers relatiō. Neither are they more cōtrary, thē whē Christ said: my doctrine, is not my doctrine: but my Fathers that sent me. Yf we cōsider the prīcipal author of these lawes, thē are thei Gods ordināces, ād not Pauls or the Apostles: by whose graciouse inspiratiō ād suggestiō they wer made. S. Paule ād the Apo∣stles were but ministers:* 1.383 ād in that respect they may be cal∣led their lawes: euen as the ministers by their ministery do truly forgeue and remitte sinne. We must yet further cōsi∣der here two things. The first, that some lawes there be of the Churche, that are properly called Gods lawes: as these

that the Apostles set forth in holy scripture, which Christe him selfe taught thē: as concerning baptisme, the holy Eu∣charistia, and some other thinges. Some other lawes there are that the Apostles set forth, but not suche as they recei∣ued at Christes own hāds, and by his mouth, but by his holy spirite after his ascension: whiche are for that cause called Christes ād Gods lawes: as for that the Apostles had al their authority to make suche lawes of him,* 1.384 they are called also the lawes of the Apostles. Namely these that were made in the first coūcel at Hierusalē, the which M. Fekenhā allea∣geth for his purpose. And betwixt these two, ther is a great differēce. For Christ gaue by him selfe fewe precepts, and and of those matters onely that were necessary for our sal∣uatiō: And therfore they may by no humaine authority be infrīged or abolished. But the precepts of the Apostles tou∣ching the gouernaūce of the Churche, though no man cā by priuate authority breake thē, yet may they, and are,* 1.385 ma∣ny of thē, by the authority of the Church abolished. Name∣ly such as were made for certain and special respectes, and not to cōtinewe for euer but for a time. As was the decree of the Apostles made at Hierusalem touching the eating of puddinges and thinges strangeled. So we see the Sabboth day turned into the sonday. So we see, that though Christ celebrated his holy maundy of the blessed Eucharistia at night and gaue yt to his disciples after supper, and in both kindes, yet the Church vseth it fasting, and for lay mē vnder one kinde. For thoughe Christe cōmaunded vs to receiue, which no man can dispense withall, yet for the maner and fashion (saieth S. Augustin) he cōmaūded nothing, but reserued that honour to the Apostles, by whō he intēded to directe the Churches. Who therfore also toke order for yt, especially S.

Paule among the Corinthians according as he promised.* 1.386 I wil dispose other things when I come. Which is the place M. Fekenham groundeth him self vpō against you. And there∣vpon S. Augustine thinketh, that whiche is vniformely and generally vsed throughout Christendome, touching the order in the administration of this Sacrament, to haue ben ordeined by S. Paule, which he could not so conueniently prescribe and ap∣point in his Epistle. So that ye see, that though it be true, these orders and lawes may be called Gods ordinaūces and lawes, yet they are and may also well be called, the lawes and ordinaunces of the Apostles. And thus M. Fekenhams Argument standeth as before, in his ful force euery way. And all your talke concerning the Lords supper, is quite from the purpose. You tell vs, that all was Gods Law that S. Paule appointed in the saide Epistle to the Corinthians. Which if it were so, yet ye reason not against M. Feken∣ham, who speaketh not of those things that he tooke order for in his Epistle, but of those things that he toke order for at his comming. Whereof he said: Caetera cùm venero, dis∣ponam, Other things I wil set in order when I come. Which as they were done without writing (as many things also that he deliuered by tradition to the Thessalonians, as M. Fekenham rehearseth out of S. Paule) so were they done against your fond conclusion, that is, without any other warrant of any lay persons. Neither is the ordinaunce of praying and preaching, the head vncouered, proprely Gods law: for then had it bene indispensable: And then had you and your fellowes, that preache with your cappe on your heades, nede to thinke vpon some good answeare, for the violating of Gods Law. And wemen come to the Church to be maried with their heads open, whiche might not be

suffred, if it were directly against Gods law. And though S. Paul geueth this reason of superioritie, and subection, be∣cause (as it seemeth) it was a custome or maner proper to the Iewes, yet both among the Romaines and other Gen∣tils, in S. Paules time, and also throughout al Christendome at this daie, the opening and discouering of the heade, is a token of subiection, and of duetifull honour to our Magi∣strates and other Superiours.

Wherefore, if we consider the Scripture well we shall finde, that S. Paule and the Apostles gaue many precepts in their Epistles, of which in the written Gospell, nothing is mentioned or ordeined. And so your Lutheran Conclusi∣on wil appeare starke false and dangerouse, where you say:* 1.387 That Paul gaue not his owne lawes beside the Ghospel, but Gods ordinaunces comprehended within his Ghospell. And againe, That Paule whether being present, he taught them by worde, or being absent, by writing, he neither wrote nor spake other then he had receiued of the Lorde. And last of al, So that the traditions that Paule speaketh of, are not other then the Doc∣trine of the Ghospell. This is, M. Horne (as I said) a Lutheran and a dangerous conclusion. For by this rule you woulde frustrate al the lawes of the Church (as Luther your Grād∣sir did) which are not expressely cōprehended in the wri∣ten Ghospell. For this beeing put, that the very Apostles made no lawes or ordinaūces, but such as they foūd before recorded in the Gospel, then (say you) by what authoritie can the Prelates of the Churche at any time hereafter take vpon them to make such lawes, as are not expressed in the Gospel? To mete therfore with this wicked sequele, ād to detect your lewd cōclusion, I wil shortly touch a few moe exāples of such lawes and ordinaunces as th'Apostles made

and not recorded, made, or ordeined otherwise in the Gos∣pel.* 1.388 First, S. Paule to the Corinthes, forbiddeth them to eate with drōckards, with robbers, with fornicatours, with the couetous, ād with idolators. In the Gospel no such restraīt appereth. Nay rather we see there Christ him self, did eate with publicans and sinners.* 1.389 Again to the Galathiās he cry∣eth out:* 1.390 Behold I Paul say vnto you: If ye be circūcided, Christ profiteth you nothing. What Gospel teacheth Paul so to say? What Gospel doth cōdemne circūcision? Nay rather, saith not Christ in the Gospel,* 1.391 I came not to vndoe the lawe, but to fulfil it? And yet not here only, but to the Philippēses most earnestly he chargeth them to cast of the yoke of the law. The like he doth to the Colossiās, teaching thē to make no more accōpt of their Neomeniae and Sabbata. Nowe for the precept that S. Paul geueth to Timothe, that a Bisshop should be the man of one wife: What Gospel prescribeth it, or com∣maūdeth it? To Titus also, the lawes that he geueth to yōg wemen, to widowes, ād to old wemē? Are not al these and many more (which for breuities sake I omit) mere cōstituti∣ons and lawes of th'Apostls, without any word made ther∣of in the Gospel? And what els intēded Christ, I pray you, M. Horne, when he saied to his Apostles a litle before his Passion,* 1.392 I haue many things yet to say vnto you: but you are not able to beare them now. Howbeit when the Spirit of Truth shall come, he will teache you all Trueth, then that by the spirite of Truth, the holy Ghost, they should learne and teache many Truthes, which in the Ghospell (where onely the doctrine and doings of Christ are recorded) they had not learned? And this holy Spirit he promised should remaine not with them only for their abode here in earth, but with the Chur¦che for euer.

To geue vs to vnderstand, that as they, so their Successours in the Churche from tyme to tyme should be taught of the holy ghost, and teache vs againe al maner of Truthe. Wher∣of vnuincibly foloweth, not only that they taught and doe teache many moe things then Christ in the ghospel taught, but also that those their doctrines and teachinges (as proce∣ding from the holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth) are infallible, sound and right holsome, and of vs therefore vndoubtedly to be obeyed and beleued. Wherby is ouerthrowē M. Horn your most damnable and wicked conclusion, affirming the Apostles to haue made no lawes of their own besides the ghospel, but only such as were Gods ordinaunces compre∣hended in the ghospel. For nowe we see both by exāples of their doings, and by vnuīcible reason out of the ghospel, that they made lawes of their own besides the ghospel, ād might both lawfully and assuredly so do, they being alwaies prōp∣ted of the holy Ghost therein, and their lawes therfore be∣ing not theirs only, but bearing also the force and value of Gods lawes, so farre, as is before declared. Farder by this it appereth, that as the Apostles thē, so their successours now and alwaies heretofore had and haue full and sufficient au∣thority to make ecclesiastical lawes or decrees ouer al their flocks from Christ himself without any iote of Commissiō frō the laye Prince, or any other lay Magistrat. And so your principall conclusion goeth ones again flatte down to the grounde.

The .169. Diuision. pag. 116. b.

M. Fekenham.

The which noble Emperour Constantinus, for the re∣pression of the Arians errours and heresies, he did at the request of Syluester then Bishop of Rome, cal the firste

Councell at Nice: where he had to the Bisshops there as∣sembled these woordes?* 1.393 Cùm vos Deus Sacerdotes consti∣tuerit, potestatem tradidit iudicandi de nobis. Et ideo nos à vobis recte iudicamur. Vos autem, cùm nobis à Deo, dij da∣ti sitis,* 1.394 ab hominibus iudicari non potestis. &c. Valētinianus Imperator eùm ille rogatus esset ab Episcopis Hellesponti Bythiniae, vt inter esset consilio, respondit: Mihi quidem cùm vnus de populo sim,* 1.395 fas non est talia perserutari, verum sacerdotes quibus haec cura est, apud semetipsos congregen∣tur, vbi voluerit. Theodosio Imperatori Ambrosius ingres∣su intra cancellos templi inter dixit, inquiēs: Interiora ô Im∣perator sacerdotibus solis patent. &c. Cul egit ob id gratias Imperator, asserens se didicisse diserimen inter Imperato∣rem & Sacerdotem.

M. Horne.

It is manifest, that Constantin called the first Nicene Councel, but very vnlikely, that he did it at the request of Syluester, be∣cause this Councel vvas (.625.)* 1.396 not in the time of Syluester, but vvhiles Iulius vvas bisshop of Rome, vvho by reason of his great age could not be there present in his ovvne person, and therfore sent in his stede Vitus and Vincentius, as the Ecclesiastical histo∣ries report, and Epiphanius affirmeth, that Constantine called this Councel at the earnest sute of Alexander Bisshop of Alex∣andria, vvhereto Ruffinus addeth, many other of the Cleargy also. But if it be true as ye say, that thēperour called the Councel at the request of the Pope, than both those Papistes are (626)* 1.397 Liars, vvhich affirme that the Pope called this Councel, and your cause by your ovvn confession is much hindred: for if the Emperour cal∣led the Councel, and that at the request of Syluester the Pope, as yee say, or at the earnest suite of Alexander, and other godlye Bisshops, as Epiphanius and Ruffinus affirme: It appeareth plainly, that both the Pope and the other Catholik Bisshops, did therby acknovvledge the (.627.)* 1.398 supreame povver and authoritie,

to sommon and cal Councels, vvhich is a (.628.)* 1.399 principal parte of your purpose, and of the Ecclesiastical iurisdiction cohibitiue, to be in themperour, and not in them selues: for othervvise they might, ād vvould haue don it, by vertue of their ovvn office, vvithout any suit made to the Emperour, to execute that vvhich belonged vnto them selues. Themperour refused to iudge the quarreling accusations of the bisshops assembled at the Nicen Councel, one quarreling and accusing an other, and referred the iudgement of them to Christ. This vvas his modesty, Policy, and prudent foresight, least by sifting those priuat quarrels, he might haue hindred the common cause, as I haue said before, and is plainly to be (.629.)* 1.400 gathered of Ruffi∣nus and Nicephorus; and (.630.)* 1.401 not for that he thought his authority might not stretche so farre as to iudge the Priests and their matters, as ye vvould haue it to seme: for as he him self pro∣testeth, this aboue all other things, to be the chief scope and ende of his Emperial authority; namely that the Catholik Church be preserued in vnity of faith, since∣rity of loue, cōcord in godly Religiō, and that the dis∣eases therein, as Schismes, Heresies, &c. might be hea∣led by his ministery: euen so forsoke he no occasion or meane, vvhereby to vvork forth this effect of his ministery and office, vvhe∣ther it vvere at some tyme by relenting and remitting somvvhat of his autority, or by exercising the same to the vtmost, in al matters,* 1.402 and ouer al persones. He thought it the best for this tyme by (.631.)* 1.403 relenting to beare vvith the vveakenes of those fathes, thereby the better to encourage thē to stād fast, and ioyntly against the cōmon enemy, for the furtherance of the truth. But aftervvad, vvhan the Coūcel or Synod vvas assembled at Tyre by his cōmmaūdemet, ād that Athanasius had made cōplaint vnto him of the vniust dea∣ling of that councel to deface the truth, themperour did exercise the ful authority of his ministery, and called al the Bishops vnto hī, to this end, that he by his (632)* 1.404 supreme authority, might examine their doīgs, ād iudge of the vvhole Coūcel, vvhether thei had iudged vprightly, ād deal•• sincerely or not. This he did at the suite of the most godly bisshop Athanas••{us}, vvho vvold not haue attributed this (.633.)* 1.405 authority to the Emperour, if it had not apperteined to his iurisdiction

to haue iudged the bisshops and their doinges▪ vvither vvould the Catholique Fathers of that tyme, haue suffered this and many o∣ther such like doinges of this most Christiā Emperour, to haue pas∣sed vvithout some admonition or misliking, if they had not ac∣knovvledged the authority in him to be lavvful. He commaunded the Bisshops euery vvhere, to assēble at his appointmēt, vvher, and vvhā he vvould. He sharply reproueth Alexāder Bishop of Alexā¦dria, and Arius, for the contention stirred vp by them. He (634)* 1.406 iudged Cecilianus Bisshop of Carthage, to be lavvfully cōsecra∣ted, and ordered, and condemned the Donatistes. And these Bis∣shoppes assembled at the Nicen Councell by his commaundement▪ of vvhom ye speake, acknovvledged the Emperour to haue autho∣rity to iudge them and their causes, (.635.)* 1.407 or els they had doone folishly, to offer their billes of complaint vnto him, vvhome they thought had no authority or might not iudge and determine thē. But in case it vvere true, that the Prince might not iudge the Priestes nor their causes, vvhat conclude you thereof? You can not conclude your purpose, for this is no more a good consequent: Constantinus vvould not could lavvfully iudge the Priestes as∣sembled at Nicen Councel: Ergo, (.636.)* 1.408 Bishoppes and Priests may cal councels make Lavves, orders, and decrees, to their flocke and cures, and exercise al maner iurisdiction cohibitiue. Then this, Yorke standeth but .iij. myles from Pocklington, Ergo, your poc∣ket is ful of plummes.

The .10. Chapter. Conteyning a defence of three exāples brought forth by M. Fekenham, touching three Emperours, Con∣stantin the greate, Valentian the first, and Theodosius the firste.

Stapleton.

ALthough that, which M. Fekēhā hath alredy layd forth out of holy scripture, be sufficiēt to shew ād proue, that the superiority in al causes ecclesiastical, doth not rest

in laye princes, but in the spiritual rulers, yet will he nowe adde and adioyne therunto, such a forcible argument, that shall beate downe to the ground M. Hornes newe Laicall supremacy. M. Horne with al his witte and cunning goeth about to auaunce his new supremacy, and to depresse and abolish the other, as contrary to scriptures, and iniuriouse to the Emperours, and princes. Nowe to stoppe his lyinge mouth M. Fekenham bringeth forth thre of the worthiest Emperours that euer were, and al thre lyuing when Chri∣stian religion most florished, that by plaine wordes confesse the cleargies superiority in this behalf: that is, Constantine the great; Valentinian the first, and Theodosius the great.* 1.409 This Constantine at the request of Siluester the pope called the first general councell, at Nice, where diuerse bisshops being at contention for certain matters, offered their com∣plaints to him. To whom Constantine answered, that where as God had made them priests, he had geuen them authority to iudge ouer him. And therefore they might well be his iudges.* 1.410 But ye (sayth he) may be iudged of no man. Good Lorde, how farre discrepant is the iudgment of this our noble contry mā (as our Chroniclers cal him) and most worthy Emperour from the iudgement of M. Horn and his fellowes? He dis∣claimeth flatly this newe superiority: Yet you nowe after one thousand and almost thre hūdred yeares, by preaching and writing, yea by premunire, and the sword do maintaine the same. This answere presseth M. Horne very sore, and therefore, he seketh euery corner to hide his head in, and yet he can fynd no good or quiet resting place. And firste he would fain take some holde in a by matter, which is, that Constantin did not cal the councel at Siluester his request: because the councell was not in the tyme of Siluester, but

of Iulius. I deny your argument M. Horne. For it must nea∣des be, that the bishops, reparing to Nice frō al quarters of Christendome, should haue a conuenient time to come thi∣ther:* 1.411 And Nicephorus writeth, that the same Councel du∣red three yeares and more. And then may it wel stand, that Syluester died either after the summoning, and before the full assemble of the bishops, or at least before the end, that so some part of it might falle in the time of Iulius, notwith∣standing that Marcus came betwene, who sate in the See litle more then two yeres. Neither doth your authours by yowe cited, deny that it was called at Syluesters requeste, nor any other of the aunciēt writers, that euer I read. But I say further vnto you, that as Constantine did cal it at his re∣quest, so did he him self cal this councell: the one by his spi∣ritual, the other by his tēporal authority: which in all good princes tyme,* 1.412 doth euer serue the other. The one (as your own Author Cusanus teacheth) by force of Authority and cōmaundement ouer al bishops, ouer whom he is the head: The other by way of exhortation,* 1.413 of temporall ayde and succour, as I haue before at large recited his wordes. But to leaue Cusanus,* 1.414 for proufe that Syluester called this Councel, I am able to bring against you, at the least two or rather thre hundred witnesses, ād the worst of them shall be a bishop, and so aūcient withal, that none of thē liued this .800. yeres. Perchaūce ye thīk that I do but iest with you: No truely M. Horne, I meane plaine fayth, without any figure of rheto∣rike, or such lying figures as ye are wel acquainted withal. Herken you thē, what the sixt general coū∣cel (wher were present about .300. bishops) saith to theire Emperour Constantine beinge then present

there. Arrius (say they) which diuided,* 1.415 and sundred the Trinity, arose and by and by themperor Constantine and the prayse worthy Syluester, did assemble at Nice a great and a notable Synod. See M. Horn. Where ye wil not suffer M. Fekenhā, saying Constantine cal∣led the councel at the request of Syluester, ye must nowe be content to suffer him, whē he telleth you, that he did cal it him self also. Beside the vndoubted testimony of these so many and Auncient Fathers, we haue the witnesse of Chroniclers, as of Eusebi{us}, Damasus, Isidorus, Photius, Platina, Regino, Panta∣leon, and diuers other. And so withal is your secōd shift, shif∣ted away: wherby ye would make your reader belieue, that the pope ād the other bishops did acknowledg Cōstantins supremacy, in calling of Coūcels, being as ye say, the princi∣pal part of iurisdictiō Ecclesiastical cohibitiue. For as this is vntrue, that the bare calling of a councel is any such princi∣pal part, as we haue before declared: so it is vntrue also,* 1.416 that ye say, that the pope called not this councell. Theis strings being very weake, and therefore sone broken as ye see, he setteth out the thirde, and that is weakest and wurst of al: And all this stringe hangeth vppon a foolishe synnefull ciuylity and policy, that Maister Horne imagineth full fondly in this worthy prince Constantine. As thowghe he spake those wordes, for his modesty onely, and for a policie and a prudent forsighte: least by siftinge those priuate quarells, he mighte haue hindred the common cause: and not for that he thoughte his authority mighte not stretche so farre as to iudge the priests. And therefore thoughe he politykely relented at this time, yet afterwarde at the councel at Tyrus he shewed hym selfe as supreame Iudge in causes Ecclesiasticall.

It is wont to be sayed M. Horne,* 1.417 cursed is that glose that destroyeth the text. Suerly ye are very imprudently ouer∣sene in this your answere? For all this is but a peuishe and a wretched policy: wherewith you dishonour this noble mo∣narch. And ye haue forgotten the rules aswell of diuinity as of policy. For as it is policy, somtyme to dissemble a truth, so to tel an vntruthe, is at all time a synne, yea though the truth be offensiue to no man, but officiable and profitable to many. As S. Augustin doth at large discourse the matter.* 1.418 Now if the Emperour be the priests iudge: then doth Con∣stantins saying conteyne a plaine lye. Seing that before he expressely confessed them to be his Iudges, and sayd farder, that they coulde be iudged of no man. We leaue this policie therfore and prudent forsight, to your generatiō, as vnmete either for Constantine, or for any other a much meaner ca∣tholyke man.* 1.419 This kynd of policy a man may fynd in great store in M. Iewels Reply, and in this your answere. This is the very practise of your newe Euangelicall schole. You seme to be persuaded, to make no accompt of lying, so that your lewde cause may be furdered. But thoughe you be naught your selues, you must not so iudge of others. Verely Constantin spake as he thought and the very truth. And he confessed as plainely, that they were his iudges: As you sawe before in his own wordes. For he sayd to the bishops plain∣ly. That they could be iudged of no man. Neither is it to be ga∣thered by Ruffinus and Nicephorus, as ye pretende, that he thought not so as he spake,* 1.420 or spake those wordes, for that only, that the cōmon cause should not be hindered, which mighte and should haue gonne forward, though he had not spoken theis words. In dede he burned their bills of com∣plaints, and so cut away their priuat quarelling, least it shuld

haue ben any hinderance to the principal matter, that was then to be discussed and debated vpon. And in case the cō∣plaintes had bene such, as Constantin might haue heard and determined, he might haue reserued them vntil the ende of the Coūcel: and then haue heard thē without any preiudice or stay of the common matters. Now what kinde of mat∣ters these were, for the which the Bisshops did contende, it doth not appeare. Yf they were tēporall, then whether Constantine might heare them, or might not, yt maketh nothing for his Ecclesiastical supremacy. Yf they were spi∣ritual matters, then are we sure, he might not heare, as the chiefe and principall iudge. Priuate quarrels they were as your self confesse, and therefore by all likelyhood of tem∣poral matters: wherein for all that, themperor thought him self no mete or cōueniēt iudge, vpon priests. And that well appereth to be his minde, by that we haue said before, that he made a law, wherby al priests conuented before any tē∣poral iudge, might refuse him,* 1.421 and require the matter to be hearde of the bishop. But of this matter see our answere be∣fore in the Second booke.

Ye are now busie again with the Coūcel of Tyrus, with Caecilianus, and such other matters, to proue Cōstantin the supreame head. Whervnto seing we haue * 1.422 alredy sufficiēt∣ly answered, we wil not encomber the Reader again with thē in this place: And neade so much the lesse, that ye seme to faynte and geue ouer your holde, and your fond glose a∣gainst the plaine text: and by putting the case it were true, which is true in dede: seke yet an other corner to crepe in, and say that though Cōstantin would not or could not law∣fully iudge the Priests, yet it will not followe, that bishops may cal Councels, make lawes, and exercise al maner of iu∣risdictiō

cohibitiue. Ye say truly M. Horn, it wil not follow in dede. Neither M. Fekenham driueth any such reason. It is sufficient, that they may exercise any cohibitiue iurisdi∣ction without the princes commission, which you haue hi∣therto denied: affirming, that they can not do it without the Princes warrant: nor the Prince him self touching the first cohibitiue iurisdiction, as ye haue diuided it. But yf they be iudges, thē must it nedes follow, that they haue some iuris∣diction cohibitiue. For as the lawe saith. Iurisdictio sine mo∣dica correctione nulla est.* 1.423 Iurisdiction without some compul∣sion is no iurisdictiō. Againe yf Cōstātinus were not the su∣preme iudge, nor could be: thē are not other Emperours or Princes, iudges any thing more, then he was, ād so hath M. F. by this iustified his assertion. This argument therfore that ye mislike, is not M. Fekenhās, but your owne. Who shal let you to like or mislike your owne reasons at your pleasure. And therefore, for aunswere to this your peuishe argumēt, I say, yt followeth no better, thē yf a man should say. York stādeth but thre myles frō Pocklingtō: Ergo your pocket is ful of plūmes. And so haue you ful wisely stopped not M.F. but your own mouth with an hādful of your own plūmes. If Priests be iudges, they haue not therby al maner of iurisdi∣ctiō cohitiue: for thē should they haue al tēporal iurisdiction aswel as spiritual. But yet for such causes as they be lawfull iudges in, they may make lawes and orders iudicially, and may haue, yea and must haue all ecclesiastical iurisdiction, for the execution of their iudgement.

M. Horne. The .170. Diuision. pag. 118. a.

Of the like fourme also are the consequents, that ye make vpon the histo∣ries of the Emperours Valentinian and Theodosius. And as you cā not fasten your purpose by any good sequele vpō these histories, so that history tha•• ye alledge of Valentinian, maketh much (.637.)* 1.424 again your purpose. Firs••

it is vncertein and may be doubted, vvhether this ansvvere that ye affirm to be Valentinians, vvere his or Valens the Emperours vvords, for as So¦zomenus one of the Tripartit Ecclesiastical historians, affirmeth this suite to be made by Catholik Bisshops of Hellespontus and Bithynia, vnto Valentinian, and that this vvas his ansvvere to their petition. Euē so So∣crates an other of the same tripartit historians affirmeth, that this suit vvas made by the Macedonians, vnto Valens the Emperour, vvho graunted thē their petition, the rather supposing, that the matter should haue ben de∣termined in that Coūcel, after the minds of Eudoxi{us} and Acatius. And it i•• not from the purpose to note vvhich of these Emperours caused this Coū∣cel to be called, for the one of t••ē, Valentinian vvas a Catholik Emperour, the other Valēs, an Arian. Secōdly you do (.638.)* 1.425 falsely report the story for the Bisshops of Hellespōt{us} and Bithynia, did not make suite vnto Thē∣perour Valentinian, that he would be present in the coūcel: but by their messenger, did humbly beseche him, that he would commaūde al the Bisshops, as Nicephorus reporteth it, or that he vvould suffer and geue leaue vnto the bisshops to haue a Synod or Councell, vvhich they held after licence obteined at Lampsacum, as Socrates and Sozomenus, the Tripartite Historiās, make relatiō. Third∣ly, the Emperour doth (.639.)* 1.426 not simply refuse or deny the search and diligent enquyrie of these matters, as things nothing apper∣teining to his office, or not lavvfull for him to enquire of: as yee vvould haue it seeme, but excuseth him selfe by his earnest bu∣sines and vvant of leysure, saying, It is not lawful: (.640.)* 1.427 (meaning that his leisure, from the vvaighty matters of the common vveale, and iust oportunitie, vvoulde not easely novve suffer him) to trauaile in those causes, and therefore referreth the exacte sifting of those thinges to them, vvhose offices and charge, vvas properlye to be occupied in those matters. That this is the true purporte of his vvordes in his right sense and meaning appereth plainly by the (.641.)* 1.428 due circumstances sette foorth in the storye, and also by Nicephorus an Ecclesia∣sticall historian, vvho rightly vnderstode his meaning, and re∣porteth it in these vvords: Mihi negotijs occupato, & reip∣cutis distento res eiusmodi inquirere, non facile est.* 1.429

It is no light or easy matter for me, that am nowe occupied with businesses, and filled so ful as I may be, with the cares of the common weale, to enquire or searche such matters. Last of al, vvhether t••e Catholique Bisshops of Helespontus and Bithynia, re∣quired the Emperours presence in the Councel, as ye affirme, or they required thervvith his labour and trauaile in the debating or searching the truthe of matter, vvhich may seeme at the first by the bare vvordes of his aunsvvere: or they desired onely licence of him and permission to assemble togeather in Synode or Councell, to determine and decree vvith the truth, against the Arianismes, vvhich the most and best part of the Historians agree vnto. Their sute and humble petition, ma∣keth plainly against your presumpteous assertion, in that they ac∣knovvledged (.642.)* 1.430 thereby the iurisdictiō to call Councels, to be in the Emperour; and not in Bisshops or Priests, vvithout speciall leaue, licence, and commission from the Prince. For if the povver and iurisdiction to cal Councels, had ben in them selues vvithout the Emperours commission, vvhat neaded them to haue craued licence of the Emperour? And if it had not bene lavvfull for the Emperour to haue ben present in the Councel, and to haue dealte in the diligent searche and debating of matters in Religion, then these Catholique Bisshoppes did vvickedly, vvho as you (.643.)* 1.431 say, moued him therevnto.

Stapleton.

* 1.432The next story is, of Valentinian themperour, whom the Catholiks required, that he would vouchsauf to be present among them in their Councel. Who made them answere, that it was not lawful for him being a lay man, to search out such matters. But ye that are priests (saith he) and that haue the care of these matters,* 1.433 may at your pleasure assemble your selfe where ye will. To this allegation Maister Horne aunswereth. First, that it is not certaine, whether the suyte was made to Valentinian, or to Valens his brother, which was an Arrian.

Secondly he saith, that M. Fekenhā doth falsly reporte the story: for that the bishops did not make suyte to him to be presente, but that he would commaund the bishops,* 1.434 as Ni∣cephorus reporteth it, or suffer, or geue leaue to the bishops to haue a synode, as Socrates and Sozomenus make relatiō.

Thirdly that themperour doth not simply denie, that the search of theis matters apperteyne to his office, but excu∣seth him self, by his earnest busines and want of leasure: as Nicephorus, who rightly vnderstode his meaning, repor∣teth. Last of all, what so euer the suyt was, they acknow∣ledged the iurisdiction to cal Councells to be in the Empe∣rour: or else what neaded they to haue craued licence of the Emperour?

Your firste, and second solution M. Horne, though they were true, wil litle relieue yow. And yet aswel in the one, as in the other M. Fekenham reporteth no more then the very wordes of his Authour,* 1.435 that wrote the Tripartite hi∣story. First that the catholyks sent to Valentinian, and not the Macedonians to Valens. This saith the Tripartite allea∣ged by M. Fekenham: this sayth Sozomenus: this sayth Pau∣lus Diaconus, this saith Nicephorus with others. As for So∣crates, though he write otherwise, yet his credit is the lesse, both for that he is knowen, to haue missereported other things, namely about the matters of Athanasius and Arrius, contrary to all other writers, and also for that he is noted of ignorance by Euagrius an other Ecclesiasticall writer, about the story of the Ephesine Coūcel: So litle cause you had to charge M. Fekenham of misreporting, your self for∣saking the consent of so many, to folowe one against all the rest, when M. Fekenham folowed the consent of the most and the best writers.

As for the second point, the sayd tripartite hath euen as M. Fekenham doth alleage it,* 1.436 and so hath Paulus Diaconus to: that is, that yt would please hym to be present, that wronge opiniōs might be reformed. For the .3. point also M. Fekenhā swarueth nothing from the sayd tripartite. Nay sayth M. Horne, the dewe circumstance set forth in the story, and Ni∣cephorus who rightly vnderstode the Emperours meaning declare, that when he sayd it was not Law∣full for him, he meant: it was no lighte or easie matter for him being occupied with busines and care of the cō∣men welth,* 1.437 to search such matters. But howe proue you, that Nicephorus a very late writer should vn∣derstand his meaning better, then Paulus Diaconus that lyued at least fowre hundred yeares before Ni¦cephorus, that writeth thus? It is not lawfull for me, and my people curiously to medle with suche matters. Wherfore doe ye that priests, as ye shal thinke good. Why should we thinke, that Nicephorus should be more priuy of themperors right meaning,* 1.438 then was Epiphanius the translatour of the Tripartite, wri∣tinge at least .600. yeares before Nicephorus was born? Yea why shuld we thīk that Nicephor{us} shuld see more deaply the meanīg of thēperor,* 1.439 thē the o∣riginal authour him self Sozomene, that liued about the said Emperours time? Who writeth, that thēpe∣rour Valētiniā answered. It is not lauful for me, being a lay mā, to be curiouse in the searchīg of theis matters. Let the bishops, to whose charge theis matters apper∣tain, assēble thē selues, at what place they list. Neither cā the circūstāce of the story of Valētiniā as ye ima∣gine,

leade a mā to your sense.* 1.440 For whether we cōsi∣der this answere, or the answer he made at the ele∣ctiō of S. Ambrose, we shal fynd al to be of one sort. Chose ye, saith thēperour to the bishops, such a bishop, for Millane, to whō we that gouern the empire, may sin¦cerly submit our head: ād whose admonitiōs we, whē by any fraylty, as mē are wont, we trespasse, may of necessi∣ty recieue as of the physitions medecine. And whē the bisshops would haue sette ouer the choise and the appointment of the newe bisshop to him, because he was a wise and a godly Prince: Nay sayth he: This enterprise or worke passeth our vocation or de∣gree. For ye that are indewed with the grace of God, and shyne brightlie with that light, may much better make this election. The Emperour also vnderstan∣ding, that S. Ambrose was chosen, sayd: I thanke thee my Lord God, that it hath pleased thee, to com∣mit mens sowles, to him (meaning S. Ambrose) to whō I cōmitted mens bodies. For before S. Ambrose was chosen bisshop of Millane, he was the gouernour of those quarters vnder the Emperour. But to put the matter out of doubt, let vs harken to S. Ambrose, and to that, that he sayeth of this Emperour. This Emperours sonne the yonge Valenti∣nian sent for S. Ambrose to come to his consistory: ād there to reason and dispute before him, ād other as Iudges,* 1.441 against the Arrian bishop Auxencius. To whome S. Ambrose an∣swered: Sir: your father did not onely say it in wordes, but or∣deyned by a law, that in matters touching fayth, or ecclesiastical order, he ought to be iudg, that is neither vnequal in office, nor vnlike in right. For theis are the words of his rescript or Law: that is, that priests should be iudges vpon priestes. Yea if a priest

were otherwise accused, and that he were to be examined of his manners and lyfe, he would that the bisshops should be iudges. Wherfore his owne lawe may best serue, for the interpre∣tation of his answere made to the bisshops of Hellespontus. And this with the other premisses declare euidently, them∣perours meaning, and that he thought it did not properly belong to him, but to the bishops, to intermedle with the affayres Ecclesiasticall.

Neither doth Nicephorus any thing hinder our purpose. For that, that he saith, wil wel stand with Sozomenus. And it is probable the Emperour sayd both. And as yt is in holy scripture, that one place supplieth the defect of the other: so is it also in chroniclers. And that perchaunce ye sawe your self, and therfore ye runne to your accustomable rea∣son, as yt were to your Bulwork, that the princes had autho∣rity to call councels, and not the bishops: for else (say you) what neaded them to haue craued Licence of themperour? Wherein I answer, they neaded his ayde for oportunyte of time and place. And as at all tymes the bishops haue wrought in cal∣ling of Councels with the princes assistāce, so at this time, (the Arrians and other heretiks bearing such a sway in the worlde) yt was great wisedome, to attempte no councell without notice geuen to the prince, and his consente had thereunto. Namely considering what persequutions the Catholikes of late had suffred vnder the Arrian Emperour Constantius, and that theire decrees could not be effectu∣ally executed against rebelliouse heretyks, who cōtemned excommunication, and al other Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction, neither they them selues coulde safely and quietly assem∣ble together, without the speciall ayde of the Prince.

M. Horne. The .171. Diuision. pag. 119. a.

Although yee (.644.)* 1.442 vntruely reporte the storie of Theodosi∣us the Emperour, and Ambrose the Bisshoppe of Millaine, yet can you not by any meanes vvrast it, to serue your purpose (.645.)* 1.443 any vvhitte at all. For if it vvere true, that Ambrose forbadde Theodosius the Emperour the entraunce into the Chauncellior that the Emperour had said to him, that he had learned the dif∣ference betvvixt an Emperour and a Priest, yet can you not con∣clude thereof: therefore Bisshops and Priests haue povver and au∣thoritie to make Lavves, Orders, and Decrees to their flockes and cures, and to exercise the seconde kinde of Cohibitiue Iurisdi∣ction ouer them. Theodosius, as the Author vvriteth,* 1.444 came into the Chauncell to offer his oblation, vvhereat S. Ambrose found no fault: But vvhen he staid there still to receiue the holy Mysteries,* 1.445 S. Ambrose sent him vvord to go foorth and abide vvith the other of the Church, for that place vvas only for the Priests: For vvhich monition the Emperoure vvas retourned to Constantinople, and came on a time into the invvarde place or Chauncell to offer his oblation, and vvent foorth againe so sone as he had offred, Ne∣ctarius the Bisshop demaunded of him, vvherefore he taried not stil vvithin, meaning to receiue the holy mysteries: To vvhome the Emperour maketh ansvvere, saying: I haue scarsely learned the difference betvvixt an Emperour and a Priest.

Stapleton.

The third story is of th'Emperour Theodosius the Great,* 1.446 whome S. Ambrose forbadde to enter into the Chauncell, saying: The inner partes of the Church, ô Emperour, lie open for Priests only, &c. whome the Emperour thanked for this admonition, saying: that he had now learned a difference betwixt an Emperour and a Priest. First M. Horne findeth this faulte with Maister Fekenham,* 1.447 that he vntruely repor∣teth the Storie of Theodosius: then in case this were a true reporte, that it can not be by any meanes wrested to serue

M. Fekenhams purpose any whit at all. For if it were true, yet could he not conclude, that because S. Ambrose for∣bad Theodosius thentrance into the Chauncel, that Bisho∣pes haue power to make Lawes and decrees, to theyr floc∣kes and cure, and to exercise the seconde cohibitiue iuris∣diction. I nowe perceyue, that Horace saying is true.

Breuis esse laboro: Obscurus fio.

Whiles men seke breuitie, they fal into obscuritie.

So perchaunce M. Horne might haue saied, and truelie to M. Fekenham. But that he saieth, that M. Fekenham maketh a misreporte of the storie, that he sayeth verie plainely, but as falsely. And therefore both to supplie this defecte, and shape M. Horne a plaine and a ful answere, I wil a litle more open this storie.

* 1.448The people at Thessalonica in a sedition and an vprore slewe certaine of the magistrates, wherevppon Theodosi∣us, though otherwise a good and a verie temperate man in al his doinges, being entred into a great rage and choler, commaunded the people of that Citie to be destroyed by his armie: which in a furiousnes without anie considera∣tion slewe suche as by chaunce they firste mette withal: were they Citizens, straungers, or foreners, were they gil∣tie,* 1.449 or were they vngiltie. After a certaine tyme it chaun∣ced, that this Emperour came to Millane, and being there, after hys custome repayring to the Churche, S. Ambrose mette hym, and forbadde him to enter: moste vehementlie reprouing hym for the sayed shawghter: asking, howe he coulde finde in his conscience, eyher to lyfte vp hys handes to God, defiled with suche a foule murther, or with the same to receyue the holie bodie of Christe, or to receyue with hys mouthe the preciouse bloude of Christe, by

whose furiouse and ragnge commaundemente so muche bloude had bene shedde? Wherefore he woulde, that the Emperour shoulde turne home againe, and that he shoulde pacientlie suffer the bonde,* 1.450 the which God had with his heauenly sentence allowed, meaning this sentence of ex¦communication. The Emperour as one browght vppe in Goddes Lawes, obeyed hym, and with weapinge teares departed: where he continued eight monethes, and neuer came all thys while to the Churche, nor receyued the sacramente of Christes bodie. The solemne feast of Chri∣stmasse being nowe come, he was in great heuines and sorowe:* 1.451 to consider that euery poore begger might goe to the Churche, and he onelie was shutte owte. And full bitterlie complayned and moned with him selfe, that he was excluded, not onelie from the Churche, but from heauen also. For he did well remember, that Christe sayde plainlie, that what so euer was bownde in earthe of Goddes Priestes, shoulde be bownde also in heauen.

At lengthe after he had sent Ruffinus a noble man, to entreat with S. Ambrose, he went him self, neither yet would presume to enter, vntill S. Am∣brose had absolued him, and losed his bōdes:* 1.452 which he did most humbly and penitently craue at his handes, offering hym selfe to receyue suche far∣der penaunce, as S. Ambrose shoulde enioyne hym. Wherevpon S. Ambrose enioyned him (for his penaunce) to make a Lawe, that suche capi∣tall sentences and iudgmentes as shoulde seame to be made extraordinarilye, and contrarye to the

common order and custome of themperours, should not be put in execution, til .30. dayes after the sentēce. That in this meane while, the Prince might, yf nede were, better aduise him selfe, either for the moderation or the abolishing of his cōmaundement. Which law was presently made and sub∣scribed with Theodosius handes, and doth at this day re∣main to be sene in the Code.* 1.453 The Emperour being at lēgth reconciled, and suffered to enter into the church, went vp into the chauncel to offer, and there remained, willinge to receiue the Sacramēt of Christes bodie, as the Emperours were wonte to doe. But S. Ambrose sent to him a deacō to warne him to depart into the body of the churche: for that the inwarde temple was a place for the priestes only. And thervpon he departed, and thanked S Ambrose. And com∣ming afterwarde to Constantinople, when he had done his offeringe in the chauncell, woulde not tarrie, but departed into the body of the Church:* 1.454 though Nectarius the Patriarche there, were not contente with yt and willed him to remaine still: to whome he answered. I haue scarsly nowe at lengthe learned the difference betwixte an Emperour, and a priest. By this story, first ye vnderstande, what a cauillor, and what a quarreller M. Horne is: to charge M. Fe∣kenham with the vntrue reporte of this story. For as for the first,* 1.455 truth yt is. S. Ambrose did not fynde faulte, that he shoulde enter into the chancel, nei∣ther M. Fekenham saieth so. But sayinge, he for∣badde him to enter, and addinge no more but these wordes, the inwarde partes, be for the Priestes, & caetera this & caetera. declareth, that M Fekenhā meante not of the bare ingresse, but of the ingresse

and tarying withall, accordinge to the story: to the which he doth referre him selfe with this & caetera. And therfore as there is no cause, why he shoulde vntruely reporte yt, making nothing for his purpose, nor againste you: so con∣sideringe the maner of his vtterance, yt is truely repor∣ted: and ye Mayster Horne shewe your selfe but a wran∣gler. For the .2. poynte, though in dede Theodoretus saieth as you reherse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, scarsly, or hardlye: yet the lea∣uing owte of those two syllables, is not any way beneficial to M. Fekenham, or preiudiciall to your cause, or worthie to be noted for any vntruth. For yt is very true, that Theo∣dosius had learned a difference betwixt themperour and the priestes, thoughe scarslye and hardlye, and in longe time.

Nowe we haue proued M. Fekenham an honeste man, and cleared him, we geue you warninge to see to your self, and that you prouide aswel for your selfe and your ho∣nesty, which ye shall neuer doe. Remēber I pray you,* 1.456 what aduantage, or what great honesty ye toke before, for the al∣leaging of Theodosius doings. Take hede I say, least his sto∣ry yet ones againe put you to as much shame. I wil not tar∣ry vppon other incidente though great matters. As that this story geueth a sure recorde and testimony againste your synagoges, or rather Barnes (.1.) aswell for the pluc∣king downe of the chauncell, and makinge no difference betwene the Priestes and the lay mens place (.2.) as also for taking away the oblation and presence of the blessed bo∣die and bloudd of Christe, testified by this story. In the which oblation, the cheife office of the Prieste remai∣neth: and for the which, as being one principall cause, [ .1.] in the auncient and primitiue Churche the Churches [ .2.]

were not barnes or cockpittes, as yours are now, but seme∣ly and orderlie distincted, with the Chauncel to the Priestes onlie: and with the bodie of the Churche, peculiarlie ap∣pointed to the people. This I say, I wil now leaue largelie [ 3] to discourse vppon (.3.) and also that this Storie destroyeth your other heresie, that Priests do not remit sinnes, but de∣clare onely sinnes to be remitted. For Theodosius confes∣sed, that by the sentence of this Bishoppe, he was excluded not only from the Church, but from heauen also. I wil now discourse only, whether this storie be aptly brought foorth [ 4] (.4.) for M. Fekenhams purpose, which ye denie. But he that doth not see most euidentlie, that this Storie proueth S. Ambrose, for causes Ecclesiastical to haue bene the head of the Church of Millaine, and not the Emperour, he will neuer see any truth, as long as he liueth, and is like to him that in a faire sunny daie stoppeth his eyes with his handes at midnoone, and then crieth out that they are fooles, that saie it is daie lighte. No, no, euery man may easely see by this Storie, that the tenour of your othe can not possi∣blie be iustified: whereby men are vrged to swere, that the Prince is supreme head not in one or two, but in AL cau∣ses or things ECCLESIASTICAL. Surely an vntrue and an horrible proposition. The which S. Ambrose, if he now liued, rather then he woulde confesse, he woulde be dismembred with wilde horses. This is to open, and to eui∣dent an absurditie, and though ye will not, or dare not con∣fesse it with plaine wordes,* 1.457 yet as we haue declared, it may be wel gathered your selfe doe not like it. And therfore ye craftelie wind your selfe from that, as much as ye may pos∣siblie, and finde many starting holes: as in the former leafe, That out of Constantinus Storie it may not be gathered, that

Bisshoppes haue all manner of Cohibitiue Iurisdiction. And here: that it can not be proued by this Storie of Theodosius, that they haue the seconde Cohibitiue Iurisdiction. But in case out of bothe it may be gathered (as it is in deede ne∣cessarilie gathered) that the Prince is not supreame Heade in all matters Ecclesiastical: then is Maister Fekenham free from taking the Othe, as being such, as neither he, nor any good man may with safe conscience receiue.

Now further, what if of this Storie, it shalbe proued most [ 5] euidently, that Bishops haue not only the .2. Cohibitiue, but the first Cohibitiue too, as ye call it? And that it is so, I sette fast footing, and ioyne issue with you. And first, for your first Cohibitiue Iurisdiction, as ye call it, in which by you is comprehended excōmunication, whiche ye see here practised without any Princes commission, yea vppon the Prince him selfe. And as no man euer read or hearde, that S. Ambrose had any other commission, either from Prince or from his Churche, to excommunicate Theodosius, and that as it is not likely, that the whole Church and Congre∣gation of Millaine woulde agree to the excōmunication of the Emperour: or that they had any such authoritie: So a man may doubte, whether there were any one laie man or Priest, that was of such courage, as herein to ioyne with S. Ambrose in so dāgerous, but yet a worthy enterprise. Sure∣ly S. Ambrose had none other cōmission, then all other Bis∣shops then, or sithens haue had. None other, I say, then he had, when he excōmunicated a seruant of the Erle Stillico,* 1.458 for forging of false letters. Which excōmunication wrought so wōderously, that he waxed mad, and was possessed of the Diuel, that began al to teare him. None other then he had, when he excōmunicated also Maximus the tyrāt:* 1.459 not with∣out

great daunger of his life.* 1.460 None other I say, then that, that he receiued of God, when he was made Bishope. This iurisdiction then did S. Ambrose ex∣ercise by his supreame Ecclesiasticall authoritie, vppon the higest Monarche of al the world. This did he by his episcopal office,* 1.461 and yet not without a plaine celestiall reuelation to encourage hym therto, and to confirme him, as him selfe declareth. Herein his doinges were agreable to his teachin∣ges. For he taught with all other Catholikes, that this excommunication perteyneth to the Bishopes ād not to the multitud. The Bishops office is (sayth he) if it maybe to heale canckered and foystered soores, and if that may not be, to cut the perniciouse and rotten partes quite of. It is then a most true principle, that Bisshops neede to looke for none other warrant to excōmunicate any man, that deserueth excōmuni∣cation: no nor the Prince neither, putting the case as ye falsely do, that he is the head of the Church. And therfore either you muste take from him thys vnnatural and monstrouse head,* 1.462 by which ye sette two heades vpon one bodie, or ye muste graunte him authoritie to excommunicat to.

Maruell it is to me, if this your preaching and teaching be so true and sure as ye make it, that the learned men about Theodosius could not espie it. O that ye had bene at his elbowe to haue enspired him whith a litle of your newe diuinitie: ye might haue wonderfullie eased his woful harte, and per∣chance if you might haue proued your doctrine, haue worne for your labour the Popes triple croune

by Theodosius good helpe, for suche good seruice in so greate distresse. What a sort of dolts had Theodosius being so mighty a Prince about him: that none of them could tell him, that he neded not to passe a buttē for S. Ambroses ex∣cōmunicatiō, vnlesse he saw yt withal sealed by the whole congregation? Yf Theodosius had learned this lesson he would haue shifted wel inough for him felfe, nor neded not to haue pined away so many moneths with cōtinual mour∣ning and lamentatiō. But suerly yf ye had tolde him so M. Horne, he would haue takē you as ye are, that is, for a lier, and an heretike. He was as I haue sayed, brought vp in the knowledge of Gods law, ād knew ful wel,* 1.463 that he was lau∣fully excommunicated, by S. Ambrose. The whiche he did muche feare, pronounced not by a Bishop onely, that hath therto ordinary, but (such was his deuotiō and his life so cō∣formable to Gods lawes) of other that had none authority at al. And therefore being on a time excommunicated, of a froward mōk, hauing none authority therto: he would nei∣ther eat, nor drink vntil he wer assoiled of him: yea though th'Archbishop him self of Cōstātinople offred to assoil him.

We will now come to the 2. cohibitiue, as ye cal yt, and to the authority of making lawes and decrees, euidently to be proued by this story. For from whense commeth this order and maner to distincte the chauncell from the bodie of the Churche, and to place the priestes in the one, and the laity in the other: but from the Bishops, without any commission of the Prince or people? The which order and lawe ye see, that S Ambrose appointed to the Prince hym selfe: which he euer afterward kepte, thoughe before he vsed the cōtrary. Againe doth not S. Ambrose prescribe to Theodosius for his penaunce, a certain lawe and order

to be set forth by him, by his proclamation? Thirdly is it not a Law made of the Bishops and councel without any com∣mission of Princes or people,* 1.464 that a sentence ones geuen, or order taken in matters Ecclesiastical, none of the Clergy should appeale vpon paine of depriuation to any ciuile Prince? And that we go not from the storie and time of Theodosius and S. Ambrose:* 1.465 did not S. Ambrose with the whole Councell kept at Aquileia depose Palladius, for that he, among other things, would haue had certaine noble men to haue ben as∣sociate to sitte in iudgement with the Bishops in the time of Theodosius?* 1.466 Of the which I haue spoken more largely in my Returne, &c. against M. Iewell.

Thus ye perceiue good Reader, how aptly and fitly M. Fekenham hath accommodated to his purpose, the stories of these three Emperours, and to what poore shifts Maister Horne is driuen for the maintenance of his euill cause, that he hath taken in hand to defend. Thus you see also, how to this storie of S. Ambrose and Theodosius M. Horne hathe answered no one word, but making a short recitall thereof, stealeth faire away, without any answere at all.

M. Fekenham. The .172. Diuision. pag. 119. a.

* 1.467M. Iohn Caluine, intreating of the Histories betwixte these Emperors Valētinian, Theodosius, and S. Ambrose, after a lōg processe wherin he maketh good prouf, that all spiritual iurisdictiō doth appertain vnto the Church, and not vnto the Empire, he hath these woordes folowing: Qui vt magistratum ornēt, Ecclesiam spoliant hac potesta∣te, non modo falsa interpretatione Christi sententiā corrum∣punt, sed sanctos omnes Episcopos, qui tam multi à tempore Apostolorum extiterunt, non leuiter damnant. Quod hono∣rem

officiūque Magistratus falso praetextu sibi vsurpauerīt. Now they do spoil the Church of that authority, therby to adorn temporal Magistrates, not onely by corrupting Christ his ap∣pointment and meaning therin: But also they lightly cōdemne and set at naught al those holy Bishops, which in so great num∣ber haue continued frō the time of the Apostles hitherto, which honour and office of Spiritual gouernmēt they haue (saith Iohn Caluin) vsurped and taken vpon them by a false pretext and title made therof. And againe Iohn Caluin saith:* 1.468 Qui in initio tan∣topere extulerunt Henricum regem Angliae, certe fuerunt homines incōsiderati. Dederūt illi summā omniū potestatē. Et hoc me semper grauiter vulnerauit, erant enim blasphe∣mi, cum vocarent ipsum summū caput Ecclesiae sub Christo. They which in the beginning did so much extoll Henry King of England, and which did geue vnto him the highest authoritie in the Church, they were men which lacked circumspection, and of small consideration: which thing (saith Iohn Caluin) did at all times offend me very much, for they did commit blasphemie, and were blasphemers, when they did cal him the supreame Head of the Churche.

M. Horne.

The collectour of your common places did (.646.)* 1.469 beguile you, vvhiche you vvoulde haue perceiued, if you hadde readde Maister Caluine vvith your ovvne eyes. He entreateth (.647.)* 1.470 not in that place of the Histories betvvixte the Emperours Va∣lentinianus, Theodosius, and Sainte Ambrose. He confuteth the opinion of such as thinke the Iurisdiction that Christ gaue vnto his Church, to be but for a time, vvhilest the Magistrats vvere as yet vnfaithfull, and proueth that the Iurisdiction of the Church, vvas geuen of Christ to remaine til his second cōming, and belongeth only to the Church, and not to the Prince (.648.)* 1.471 Bishop, or, Priest, vvithout special cōmission frō the Churche. The vvhiche Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction, * 1.472 I comprehended vnder the first kind of cohibitiue Iurisdictiō. You do M. Caluin not double, but quadruple,

yea much more vvrong about the citing of his sentence▪ for as ye haue vntrue∣ly reported the circumstance of his sentence, so haue you hackte from the be∣ginning thereof one material vvorde, part of it you haue obscurely tanslated, the other part falsly, and by altering his vvords and sense, ye haue belied him, slaundered the auncient Bisshopes, and haue auouched M. Caluin (if those vvere his vvordes and meaning, vvhich you in your translation Father vp∣pon him) directly against your selfe: vvhich you meant not, for ye thought (as I suppose) you had so cunningly handeled him, that he should haue serued your turne. If this your euil dealing vvith M. Caluin, proceeded of ignoraunce, for that his Latine vvas to fine for your grosse vnderstanding, ye are somevvhat to be borne vvithall: but if you haue thus dealt of purpose, than your malice is ouer great, ye shevve your selfe shameles to deale so vnhonestly, and that in the sight of al men. After that M. Caluin hath proued, that our sauiour Christ gaue the discipline of excommunication vnto the Church, to be exercised con∣tinually by the same: to the censure vvhereof all estates ought to submitte thē selues, for if he be an Emperour, he is vvithin, or vnder, and not aboue the Church, He concludeth vvith this sentēce: Quare illi qui vt Magistra∣tum ornent &c. VVherefore they which to adorne the Magi∣strate, doe spoile the Church of this power (to exercise the discipline of excōmunicatiō) do not only corrupt Christs sentēce with a false interpretation: but doe also, not lightly condemne al the holy Bisshopes, which were so many from the Apostles time: for so much as they (al the holy Bisshopes) haue vsurped to them selues the honour and office of the (ciuil) Magistrate vnder a false pre∣tense or colour. The first vvord of the sentence vvhich knitteth the same, as a conclusion to that, that goeth before, ye haue lefte out. Hovve darkely ye haue translated the first parte of the periode, may appeare by conference of your translation vvith the Authours vvordes. The laste parte ye haue falsely translated, tourning the Coniunction into a Pronoune relatiue, and transla∣ting this vvord Magistratus (vvherby Caluin meaneth the ciuil Magistrat) by these vvordes, spiritual gouernement, and so haue cleane altered both the vvordes and (.649.)* 1.473 sense of M. Caluin, and yet shame not to belie him, saying (Iohn Caluin saieth) vvhich he saieth (.650.)* 1.474 not. But it is M. Fekenham that saieth, and so belieth Caluin, and (.651.)* 1.475 slaundereth the auncient Bishopes, as though they (for to them this, they, hath relation) had

taken vpon them the office of the Magistrate: as they had done in dede, if al manner correction and iudgement had belonged to the Magistrate, and none at al to the Church, by vvhose commission they exercised this iurisdiction. If this vvere M. Caluines saying, as ye translate him, that they (all the holie Bisshops from the Apostles time) haue vsurped and taken vpon them the ho∣nour and office of Spiritual gouernement, by a false pretext and title made thereof, then haue you alleaged M. Caluin against your selfe, for this sentence, if it vvere true (.652.)* 1.476 ouerthrovveth your purpose, nothing more.

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

Stapleton.

IN al this Diuision, M. Horne,* 1.477 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,* 1.478 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.* 1.479 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,* 1.480 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?* 1.481 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.* 1.482 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,* 1.483 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,* 1.484 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)* 1.485 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.)* 1.486 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?

* 1.487And 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.* 1.488 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.* 1.489 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,* 1.490 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.* 1.491 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,* 1.492 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.* 1.493 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,* 1.494 you would haue charged him M. Horn with an vnkind meaning to the Prince ād to the State, yea and say,* 1.495 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.* 1.496 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,* 1.497 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,* 1.498 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.* 1.499 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,* 1.500 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?* 1.501 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,* 1.502 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

* 1.503Hosius 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.)* 1.504 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 * 1.505 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 * 1.506 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.)* 1.507 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 * 1.508 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.)* 1.509 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.)* 1.510 are, or at least ye ought, to be ashamed therof.

The .12. Chap. Conteyning a Confutation of M. Hornes answer, made to the woordes of Athanasius.

Stapleton.

HEre is nowe one other allegation by M. Fekenham proposed out of Athanasius. Hosius the Bisshop of Corduba (saith M. Fekenham) who was present at the first Nicene Councel, hath these wordes, as Athanasius writing against the Emperour Constantius doth testifie.* 1.511 Yf this be a iudgement of Bisshops, what hath the Emperour to do there with? But one the contrary parte, yf these thinges be wrought by the threates and menaces of Emperour: what neade is there of anye men besides, to beare the Bare Ti∣tle of Bisshoppes? When from the beginning of the worlde hath it bene heard of, that the iudgement of the Churche toke his authority of the Emperour? Or when hath this at any tyme bene agnised for a iudgement? Many synodes haue ben be∣fore this tyme: many Councels hath the Church holden: but the tyme is yet to come,* 1.512 that either the fathers went about to per∣suade the Prince any such matter, or the Prince shewed him selfe to be curiouse in matters of the Churche. But nowe we haue a spectacle neuer sene before: browght in by Arrius he∣resye. The heretikes and the Emperour Constantius are assem∣bled, that he may vnder the colour and title of Bisshops, vse his power, against whome it pleaseth him. M. Horne to this al∣legation aunswereth, that M. Fekenham doth Athanasius threfolde wronge. &c.

To the first wronge I replie, that putting the case that these are not Hosius his words, but Athanasius: M. Feken∣hams matter is nothing thereby hindered, but rather fur∣thered: considering the excellent authority, that Athana∣sius hath and euer had in the Churche. And Hosius hath

euen in the said epistle of Athanasius, and but one leaf be∣fore, a much like sentence, proceding of a couragious and a godly boldenes. Medle not you Syr Emperour (saieth he to the forsayed Constantius) with matters Ecclesiastical, neither cōmaund vs in this parte, but rather learne these thinges of vs. God hath committed to you the Empire, and to vs those things that appertaine to the Churche. And therefore,* 1.513 euen as he that maligneth and spiteth your Empire, doeth contrarie Gods ordinance: so take ye head, least ye in medling with matters of the Church, doe not runne into some greate offence. Whereas (for the second wrong done to Athanasius) you say, that M. Fekenham hath lefte one material word out of Athanasius, ye haue turned that worde, to one halfe hundred wordes, with a nedelesse declaration the space of one whole leafe at the least. And yet you neuer come nigh the matter. Be∣side (such is your wisedome) ye alleage in this your extra∣ordinarie glose an epistle of S. Ambrose, which doth so cō∣firme M. Fekenhams present allegation,* 1.514 and is so agreable to Athanasius, ād so disagreable to the cheife principle of al this your boke, that I maruel that euer ye would ones name it, vnlesse ye neuer read it your self, but trusted the collector of your cōmon places. For the law of Va∣lentinian, whereof we spake before, is in that epi∣stle, to the yong Valentian. Whē euer heard you (sayth he) that in a cause of faith lay mē gaue iudgment vpon a Bishoppe? If we will peruse and ouerloke, either the order of holie write, or the Auncient tyme: who is there that will denie, that in matter of Faythe, I saie, saieth S. Ambrose, in matter of faieth, but that the Bishoppes are wonte to iudge vppon the Em∣perours, and not the Emperours vppon the Bishoppes?

He saith againe afterward: If there be any conference to be had touching the faith,* 1.515 it must be had emong the Priestes. And how this doctrine of S. Ambrose which is the doctrine of the catholike Church, and most conformable to the saying of Athanasius, agreeth either with your late acte of parlia∣ment, wherby the catholik bishops were deposed, or with the doctrine of your boke, euery man may see. Yea S. Am∣brose saieth yet farder, that the Emperour Valētiniā, whose sonne (being enduced thereto by the Arrian bishop Auxē∣tius) woulde nedes call the bishop before his benche, and Iudge ouer him, made an expresse lawe, that: In matter of faithe,* 1.516 or of any ecclesiastical order, he should iudge, that were neither by office vnequal, neither by right vnlike. That is as S. Ambrose him selfe expoundeth it. Sacerdotes de Sacerdoti∣bus voluit iudicare. He woulde haue Priestes to iudge ouer Priestes. And not only in matters ecclesiastical or of faithe, but saieth S. Ambrose: Si aliâs argueretur Episcopus, & morū esset examinanda causa, etiā hanc voluit ad Episcopale iudiciū pertinere. If otherwise also a Bishop were accused, and a question touching maners were to be examined, this que∣stion also that Emperour woulde haue to belonge to the trial and Iudgement of Bishops. Here you haue, that yt be∣longeth not to Princes to be iudges vppon priests either in matters of faith, either in matters touching liuing and mā∣ners: which doth vtterly destroy al your new primacy, and your late acte of Parliament, deposing the right Bishoppes, as I haue saide. And we are wel contente that councelles shoulde be free from al feare, and that Princes shoulde not appointe or prescribe to Bishops, howe they should iudge, as ye declare owt of Athanasius and S. Ambrose. Let this be as muche material as ye wil to a bishoply iudgmēte. But

I pray you, is there nothing else,* 1.517 that Athanasius saieth is material to the same? Yes truely. One of these materiall thinges was, that this Councel was made voyde and annichilated, for that Iulius the Pope did not consent to yt, as the canons of the Churche require: which commaunde,* 1.518 that neither councel be kepte, nor Bishoppes condemned withowte the Authoritie of the Bishoppe of Rome. And there∣fore Iulius did rebuke the Arrians, that they did not first of all require his aduice, which they knewe was the Custome they shoulde, and take their de∣finitiō from Rome.* 1.519 This Pope also did restore A∣thanasius againe to his Bishopprike, as your author Athanasius hym selfe declareth out of the sayde Iulius epistle to the Arrians. See Mayster Horne what a materiall thing ye haue lefte out, so ma∣teriall I say, that it maketh all your synodes, and all your depriuations of the Catholyke Bishoppes voyde: as were the doinges of the Arrians againste Athanasius. Nowe as you haue lefte out these ma∣teriall thinges: so haue ye browght foorth no materiall thing in the worlde to auoyde Athana∣sius authority. And therefore for lacke of sounde and sufficient answere, ye are driuē to make penish argumentes of your own, and then to father them vppon M. Fekenham saying to him. I doubt not, but that ye see suche faulte in your fonde sequele, that ye are, or at the least wise owght to be, ashamed thereof.

But the Sequele of M. Feckenhā is this. He saith to you with Athanasius: whē was yt heard from the creatiō of the world, that the iudgmēte of the Church

should take his authority of the Prince? When was this agnised for a iudgement? And so forth. Yf the Prince be supreame head in al causes ecclesiastical,* 1.520 if al iurisdictiō ecclesiastical, be vnited and annexed to the crowne: yf the synodical de∣crees of Bishoppes be nothing worth withowt the kinges expresse consente: yf catholike Bishops be deposed by the Princes commissiō: yf lay men only may alter the olde aun∣cient religiō (al which things with other like are now done and practised in Englande) thē doth the Church iudgmēt in Englande, take his authority of the prince and lay mē. And then may we wel, and ful pitifully cry out, whē was there any suche thinge frō the creatiō of the worlde heard of before? This this, is M. Fekenhams argument M. Horne: this is his iuste and godly scruple that staieth him, that he rūneth not headlong to the deuill, in taking an vnlawful othe, against his conscience: settled vpō no light, but vppon the weighty growndes, of holy scripture, of general coūcels, of the holy and blessed fathers, finally of the custome and belief of the whole catholike Churche: and namely among all other of this authority brought out of Athanasius:* 1.521 who also in an other place saieth, that the Arrians assembles coulde not be called synodes, wherin the Emperours deputy was president.

Wherefore it is a most opē an impudent lye that ye say, that M. Fekēham causeth Athanasius to beare false witnes against him self: how proue you this, good Syr? By this, say you, that yt is euident by Athanasius and Hosius to, that Prin∣ces haue to medle and deale in causes or thinges ecclesiasticall, namely in calling of councelles, for by this Constantius and his brother Constans the Sardicense councel was summoned. A worthie solution perdy for you, and a wonderfull contra∣dictiō for Athanasius. Ye shew vs, that they called this coū∣cel:

but that there was any thing spokē or done in that coū∣cell by Athanasius (who was there present) or other, that should cause Athanasius to be cōtrary to him self, ye shew nothing. Shal I thē answere you, as M. Iewel answereth M. D. Harding, naming this councel,* 1.522 but referring the Reader to the councel it self? This coūcel, saith M. Iewell is brought in, al in a mummery, saying nothing. And then he addeth: yet forasmuche as these men thincke yt good policy to huddle vppe theire matters in the darke, it wil not be amisse,* 1.523 to rippe them abrode, and bring thē forth to light. And yet for all this great brauery and bragge, he leaueth the matter of this coūcel as he fownd yt, and speaketh no more of yt, one way or other. Me think M. Horne, that you treade much after his steps. Ye name the coūcel, but ye tel vs not one materiall worde for your purpose out of it. I wil therfore furnishe that, that lacketh in M. Iewel and you: especially seing the matter is suche as toucheth the deposing of Athanasius, that is, our present matter, and withal, al this your present Treatise and answere to M. Fekenham.

I say thē first: the conditiōs that ye require in a Bishoplie iudgmēt were here exactly obserued. This coūcel was farre ād free frō al feare, farre frō the pallace. Here were present no Coūties with souldiars as it was wōt to be in the Arriās synodes, to extort the cōsent of the Bishops. Whervpō the Arriā bishops, who were called to this coūcel,* 1.524 ād came thi∣ther in great nūber, seing this, and seing Athanasius present (whom they had vniustly deposed) yea and ready to āswer thē, and to disproue their wrōgful doings, and finding their own cōsciencs withal gilty, had no more hart to abide the triall of this free Synode, then you and your other Prote∣stante bretherne had to appeare in the Councell of Trent.

And therfore ful pretely shronke and stole awaie.* 1.525 The or∣der of this Councel was a verie Synodicall and an Episco∣pal iudgemēt. Neither Emperour was present, nor anie de∣putie for him, that I haue yet read of, though at the request of Constans the Catholike Emperour, and by the assent of Constantius the Arrian, that councel was assembled. Nei∣ther was there either in the tyme of the councel, or after∣warde the councel being ended, anie consent or confirma∣tion required of the Emperour: and yet were there a greate number of Bishopes excommunicated and deposed to. The sentence of Pope Iulius, which, in a councel at Rome a litle before, restored Athanasius and other Bishopes by the Ar∣rians in the Easte vniustly thruste out,* 1.526 was exequuted. Ma∣nie lawes, orders, and decrees touching matters ecclesiasti∣cal were in this councel ordeined. Namely for deposing of Bishopes, and placing others in theyr romes, in all which yt was decreed, that if a Bishope deposed by his fellowe Bishoppes at home (for Princes deposed none in those daies, though banish and expell they did) would appeale to the Bishoppe of Rome, that then the Bishops who had deposed the partie appea∣ling should send informations to the Pope, and that if he thought good, the mater should be tried a freshe, otherwise the former iudgement to take effect. For final decision also of such appel∣latiōs made to Rome, it was in this general coūcel decreed, that the Pope might, either appoint cōm••ssioners to sit vpō the matter, in the Court from whence the Appeale came, or if he thought so meete▪ to send legates from his owne Consistory to de∣cide the mater. In lyke manner it was there decreed, that Bi∣shopes s••ould not haunte the Emperours palaice, excepte for certaine godly suites there mentioned, or inuited ••hi••her of the Emperour himselfe. Also of Bishopes not to be made, but

such as had continewed in the inferiour orders, certayne yeres, &c. it was in that councel decreed. All which and di∣uers other ecclesiasticall maters that councel determined, without any superiour Authoritie from the prince.

And so to conclude, this one Councel that ye bring in,* 1.527 but in a mummerie, your false visor being taken from your face, openeth what ye are, and answereth fully al this your booke: as wel for the principal mater, that the Pope ys the supreame head, and that Bishopes maie appeal to him from all quarters, as that the Prince hath no necessarie voyce in Councelles. Againe, that as wel the first as the second co∣hibitiue iurisdiction (as you diuide them) belongeth to the Bishopes.

Laste of al your greate principle,* 1.528 that you and your M. Caluin so stronglye builde vppon, that no excommunica∣tion ought to be made without the consente of the congre∣gation, where the partie that is or shalbe excommunicated dwelleth, is vtterly destroied For Theodorus, Narcissus, Acha¦tius, Stephanus, Vrsacius, Valens, Menaphontes, and Georgiu••, Arrian Bishopes, were in this councel deposed, and excom∣municated, without anie consent or foreknowledge of the congregation where they dwelled. And as this was done in this councel against these men: So was the like done in o∣ther councelles against many other heretikes. Wherefore this is a most absurde proposition of Caluin, that M. Horne his scholler so hardly maintaineth. The storie of this coūcel is at large declared by Athanasius hym self, and most strong∣ly confirmeth that his former saying, that it is no Councell of Bishopes which hath his authoritie of the Prince. Nei∣ther can M. Horne make light of this Councel as well for the foresaid cause, as for that it was populouse and frequen∣ted

by a greate number of Bishoppes of thyrtie and fyue Prouinces there present,* 1.529 of the whiche our Britannia was one, and as well Catholike for fayth, as auncient for tyme, and suche a one as theyr Decrees bynde the whole Churche. And the whole Synode sayeth: Let all the Catholike Churche dispersed through out the worlde, keepe and obserue all that we haue ordeyned. And thus muche haue I sayed, to fyll vp your emptie boxe of the Sardi∣cense Councell, that you and M. Iewell playe the iolie mummers withal.

The .175. Diuision. pag. 123. a.

M. Fekenham.

* 1.530Allmightie God saieth by his Prophete Hieremie, which was bothe a Prophete and a Prieste. Ecce dedi verba mea in ore tuo: Ecce cōstitui te super gētes & super regna, vt euellas & destruas, & disperdas, & dissipes, & aedifi∣ces,* 1.531 & plātes. Gregorius Nziāzenus sermonede dictis Hiere∣miae ad Iulianum Imperatorem: putas ne patimini vt verū vobiscum agam, suscipitis ne libertatem verbi, & libenter accipitis, quod lex Christi sacerdotali vos nostrae subiecit potestati, atque iustis tribunalibus subdit? Dedit enim nobis potestatem, dedit principatum multò perfectiorem princi∣patibus vestris, aut nunquid iustum videtur, si cedat spiritus carni, si à terrenis coelestia superentur, si diuinis praeferantur humana? Sed patienter quaeso accipite libertatem nostram. Scio te ouem esse gregis mei, scio te intra sacra altaria cum veneratione subijci manibus sacerdotis, &c.

* 1.532And by this Prophete Ezechiel almighty God saieth: Vae Pastoribus Israel, quod infirmū fuit, non consolidastis,

quod aegrotū, non sanastis: quod confractum non alligastis: quod abiectum, non reduxistis: quod perierat, non quaesistis. Into the whiche maledictions and curses, the Bishoppes and Priestes muste needes incurre, if they haue no Iuris∣diction ouer theyr flocke, if they maie not visite them, if they may not refourme them, if they maie not order and correcte them, at all tymes as they shal see cause.

Chrysostomus Homil. 5. de verbis Esaiae,* 1.533 vbi Sacerdo∣tem astruit esse medium inter Deum & Hominem, nul∣lumque honorem in terris illius honori posse conferri.

And therefore here to conclude this my obiection vnto your L. answeare, I shall here finishe the same, say∣ing with the blessed Martyr Ignatius, S Iohn the Euan∣gelistes disciple. Quòd nemo praeter Episcopum aliquid agat eorum quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent.* 1.534 And so to adio∣yne herevnto the sayinge of S. Augustine, who in spea∣kinge Contra Iulianum, ait de Doctoribus Ecclesiae: quod credunt, credo: quod tenent, teneo: quod docent, doceo: quod praedicant, praedico: istis cede, & mihi ce∣des. &c.

M. Horne

In all this parte there is not (.659.)* 1.535 one sentence, that can be dravven by any force to helpe your cause. It suffised you, to heape vp a sorte of testimonies togeather, to make a shevve, allthough nothinge to the purpose. Yea the vvoordes spoken to the Prophete Hieremie maketh plainely (.660.)* 1.536 againste you. For they shevve, that the ministers, in Gods Churche, haue au∣thoritie to plucke vp by the rootes, and to destroie euilles and the kingedome of Satan, to plante good thinges, and

to edifie the Churche, as the glose enterlined hath it, or all maner wicked and false doctrine, and what so euer the heauenly Fa∣ther hath not planted, as the glose ordinary expoundeth it. But the meanes vvhereby this iurisdiction and authority is exercised, is (.661.)* 1.537 limited and appointed in these vvordes: Beholde I haue put my woordes in thy mouthe, saithe God to Hieremy. So that other iu∣risdiction ouer people and kingdomes, than the preachinge of Goddes vvorde Hieremy had not. Hieremyes mouth is touched, saieth the glose or∣dinary, and the Lordes woordes are geuen (to him) that he shoulde receiue boldenes to preache. Of this boldenes to preache the vvoorde of God, speaketh Gregory Nazianzen. in the place by you alledged. After he had comforted his hearers, he tourneth his speache to the Princes, and suche as vvere in authority, muste we spare you (saithe he) bicause of your power, as though we feared, or were ashamed of the liberty geuē vs of Christe? Christes lawe hath made you subiect to my power, and to my iudgement seate. He speaketh of a spirituall subiection by faith, and obediēce to the minister, exhortinge, comfortinge, and edifiing to eternall life by the vvoorde of God. And he addeth more expressely, vvhat maner of rule or empire he challen∣geth, namely suche as bringeth the fleashe to be subiect to the spirite, suche as maketh earthly thinges subiect to Heauenly.* 1.538 And the subiection he re∣quireth is none other, than such as the spiritual sheepe ovveth to the spiritual pastour, vvhose rule and subiection Christe vttereth in this sentence: My sheepe heare my voice and follow me. I knovv saith Nazianzene to the Emperour, that thou arte a sheepe of my flocke, and there∣vpon he concludeth that he must, boldely preache the vvoorde to the Em∣perour, and that he on the other side is subiect therto and ought to obey. And * 1.539this is the propre Iurisdiction that belongeth to the Bishoppes and Prie∣stes, the vvh••che if they exercise vvith all possible diligence and faithful∣nes, they shal escape the curses that the Prophete Ezechiel menasseth: As cō∣traryvvise if they vse neuer so princely your popish, or rather pompous Canon Lavve iurisdiction, vvhiche consisteth in† 1.540Courtly consistories, and Forin∣secal iudgemēts, farre disagreing frō the right iurisdiction of true and Chri∣stianlike Prelates, they shal not in the ende escape the deserued maledictiōs, and curses threatned to such by the Prophet Ezechiel.

The .13. Chapter. Of M. Feckenhams laste Authorities al∣leaged out of holy Scripture, and out of certaine do∣ctours, for proufe of the Bishoppes Iurisdi∣ction in matters Ecclesiastical.

Stapleton.

THIS parte of M. Fekenhams obiectiō (being the ve∣ry last, conteineth vj. authorities: two takē out of the holy scripture, fowre out of the holy Fathers, Gre∣gory Nazianzene, Chrysostom, Ignatius and S. Augustine. But in al this saieth M. Horne, there is no one sentēce, that may be drawē by any force to helpe M. Fekenhā his cause. This is a shorte and a bolde asseueration M. Horne: let vs then see by the examinatiō and discussing of your answere, whether that M. Fekenhams allegation be no stronger thē ye imagine. Thus saith thē God to the Prophete Hieremie.* 1.541 Beholde, I haue put my wordes in thy mowth: beholde this day haue I set thee, ouer the natiōs and ouer kingdoms to plucke vp, to roote out, to destroy, and to throwe downe, to builde, and to plāte. And Ezechiel the prophet crieth out. Wo be vnto the shepherdes of Israell. The weake haue ye not strengthened, the sicke haue ye not healed, neither haue ye bownde vp the brokē,* 1.542 nor brought againe that which was driuē away: neither haue ye sowght that which was lost. Gregorie Naziangene speaketh vnto the Emperor in this sort. Wil ye suffer me to deale truely with you? Wil ye receiue the liberty of Gods word, wil ye gladly take yt, that Godds lawe doth subiecte you to our priestlie power, ād to our lawful iudgmēt seates? For certaīly God hath geuē vnto vs a power he hath geuē vs a prīcipality, much more perfect thē is yours. Or doth it seme to agree with iustice, that the spirite should yelde to the fleshe, that earthly things shoulde ouercome

heauenly thinges, and that worldly thinges shoulbe be prefer∣red to godly thinges? I knowe that ye are a shepe of my flocke: I know that at the holy aulters, ye do submitte your self vnder the Priestes handes with reuerence. These three authorities M. Horne would remoue out of the way with one simple so∣lution: that neither Hieremie, nor Ezechiel, nor Gregorie Nazianzene spake of any other iurisdiction, then of boldlie preaching Gods worde, to the which the Emperour is sub∣iecte and owght to obey. And this is the proper iurisdictiō that belongeth to Bishoppes, which yf they diligētly exer∣cise, they neade not feare Ezechiel his curses.

But ô Lorde God, what maner of answere is this? Na∣melie for one that taketh vppon him, to be him selfe a pa∣stour and a prelate of the Churche? Is there no other M. Horne but preaching prelacy in Christes Churche? It is to be wished, that men woulde geue so good, and so attētiue eare to theire spiritual pastours, that by theire earnest prea∣ching they woulde reforme them selues. But what yf after many and ernest admonitiōs, the party be neuer a whit the better, but rather endured, either to continewe his vitiouse liuing, or his pestilent and vngodly teaching? Shal not the pastour procede to excommunication? Or yf the party be a spiritual man, to deposition and depriuatiō? Or thinke ye, that all men do amēde by wordes onely? Or thinke ye, that the pastour is excused, yf he procede no farther? No, no M. Horne, your doctrine is insensible, absurde and most repu∣gnant to al the examples and practises that we fynde in the Church frō Christes time to our owne, that I euer read or heard of and most euidētly cōfoūded by our prophete Hie∣remie. In whose wordes we haue a liuely patterne of the bishoplie office, practised by S. Paule and the Apostles, by

general and national councelles: and by an infinite number of holy learned and auncient Bishoppes:* 1.543 by S. Paule in the Corinthian, and in Alexāder and Himeneus, of whome we haue spoken before. I would to God, saieth S. Paule, they that disquiet you, were quite cutte of. Heare M. Horne, what he saieth of this authority. Arma militiae nostrae non carnalia sunt, sed potentia Dei ad destructionem munitionum, consilia destruentes, & omnē altitudinem extollentem se aduersus sciē∣tiam Dei, et in captiuitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi, & in promptu habentes vlcisci omnem ino∣bedientiā. The weapons of our warfare (saieth he) are not carnal, but mighty throughe God, to caste downe holdes, casting downe the imaginatiōs and euery highe thing, that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captiuity euery thowght to the obedience of Christe: and hauing redie vengeance againste al disobedience. You see how conformable S. Paules saying is to the saying of the prophete. Whose sayinges ye cā not by any good interpre∣tation restraine to preaching onely. Whiche thing as yt is euident in S. Paule,* 1.544 may also be gathered out of the words of Hieremie. For immediatly after the wordes alleaged by M. Fekenham, these wordes followe. After this, the worde of the Lorde came vnto me, saying: Hieremie, what seest thou?* 1.545 And I sayd, I see a rod of an almond tree as Theodosio tran∣slateth, or as the 70. haue I see a staf made of a nutte tree: or as our common translation hathe, I see a waking rodde. This is the pastoral rod or staf M. Horne, that prelates doe, and haue euer vsed in excommunicating and deposing persons incorrigible. This is the rod that S. Paule threatned the Co∣rinthians withal. What? Saieth he, wil ye that I shal come vnto you with a rodde, or in loue, and in the spirite of meekenes?

The barke of the almon is bitter, but the fruite is most plea∣sante. So the pastoral rodde, though for the time it seemeth paineful and greauouse, yet to them, that thereby amende them selues, it bringeth afterwarde great comforte. And therefore it is writen:* 1.546 Thy rodde and thy staffe haue confor∣ted me. And S. Paule saieth, he excommunicated the for∣nicatour at Corinth, to the destruction of the fleshe, that the sprite might be saued in the daie of our Lord Iesus. Which be∣nefitte they shal enioye, that, by this pastoral rodde, maie be brought to true penance, and to the earnest amendment of theyr wickednes. As contrarie wise they that by this rodde wil not be reformed, but remain stil with Pharao wiful, ob∣stinat, and hard hearted, shal really feale that, that the Pro∣phet Hieremy sawe by a vision, incontinently after he had seene the rod: that is, a sething pot, prepared to boyle them in hel, that neither by preaching, nor by pastoral staffe will fal to earnest repentance. And not they only, but such Pa∣stours also, as either for negligence or feare forslowe to do theyr dewtie: whether it be in the exercising of the pasto∣ral word, or els of the pastoral sworde: and suche chiefly as take awaie from them, and deny them theyr pastoral sword. Which heresie tendeth to the vtter destruction of al eccle∣sticall power and discipline: which power is (as all other things of the newe testament are) verie plainely shadowed, by the old Testament: Namely by these wordes of God spo∣ken by Hieremy, representinge the parson of the Christian Pastour: expressed, as yt were, by the office of an hus∣bandman or gardiner: or as Ezechiell expresseth his du∣tie, by the office of a Shepherde. As the husbandman doeth not onelie donge and fatte hys grounde: as the gar∣diner doeth not onelie water hys garden, but bothe of

them rooteth out vnprofitable herbes, weedes, and rootes: And as the shepherd doth not only bring his flocke to good and holsome pastours, but hath his tarre, to tarre them, his staffe to beate awaye the rauenouse beastes and birdes, his knyfe to launce them, and his place to sea∣uer and shutte vp the infected from the sownd and whole: Euen so it is not inough for the spiritual gardiner, as it were by Gods worde to water the harde stonie hartes of the sinners, and with the same as it were to fatte the leane and barren harte of man: but he must also, when the case so re∣quireth, weed out of Christes gardē, the wilful, and the ob∣stinat: as it were brambles, briers, and thistles choking the good groūd, and plāte in their place other good graffes. And must not only with his tōge, as it were with his barkīg dog, but with hys pastorall staffe also dryue awaye the wolfe from the flocke: partly by excommunication, partly by de∣priuation. And he must in this part remember, that Christe had his whip also, to whip and scourge thē out of the tēple that prophaned the same. The spiritual pastour hath beside preaching, authority also to bind and lose the sinnes of hys flocke: so that if he lose thē, Christ loseth them: if he bindeth them, Christ also bindeth thē. Of this and of the like autho∣rity meaneth Gregory Naziāzene, ād not of bare preaching. This is the power that he speketh of, this is the lauful iudge∣mēt seat of the church, this is a prīcipality aboue al worldly princes power. These so ample words go further M. Horne, then preaching, vnlesse men preache also, with theyr hands aswel as with their mouthes. For Naziāzen writeth, that the Emperor with reuerēce submitteth himself vnder the Priestes hands at the holy alters. What? Are aulters holy? What an ho∣lie deede haue ye then and your fellowes done M. Horne,

that haue throwen doune all aulters, whiche haue conti∣nued euen sithens we were first christened?* 1.547 And by hauing of the which Chrysostomus proueth, that our Ilelande of Britanie had receiued Christe and his Ghospell? Where∣vppon it wil followe, that in taking away of them, ye haue taken away Christes fayth withall: as in dede ye haue for a great parte of the same: as appeareth by your dayly doinges and your wicked articles in your Synagoge of late vnlaw∣fully agreed vppon: especially touching the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament. For the vnblouddy of∣fering of the which to our inestimable comforte the aulters do serue in Christes Catholike Church. To the receiuyng wherof no man can be admitted but by the spiritual Pastor, no not the Emperor him selfe, whom as wel as the poorest man, he may exclude from the same, if he thinke it expe∣dient. As appeareth by the storie of the Emperour Theo∣dosius, by vs rehersed: which is the thing that Naziāzene also doth here though obscurely signifie: as also absolution to be receyued by the handes of the spiritual Pastour. To enioye the which the greatest Prince in the world submit∣teth his head vnder the pastors hands, as appeareth by our authour here,* 1.548 and by other auncient Fathers, namely S. Ambrose and S. Augustin. Wherefore ye do very fondly to make this great and high iudgemēt seate nothīg but prechīg. And yet if it were so, M. Fekēhams allegation taketh place, and is sufficient to acquite and discharge him from the othe. For what prīcipality so euer it be, that our author speaketh of, assured we are it is an ecclesiastical authority or princi∣pality. We are againe aswel assured, as it here appereth, and ye graunt it also, that this power excelleth any temporall principality. Ergo, we may infer, that the prince is not su∣preme head in al causes or things ecclesiastical.

M. Horne. The .176. Diuision. pag. 124. b.

Chrysostome in the homily by you cited condemning the pre∣sumptuousnes of the King Ozias, in enterprising to offer incense, vvhich belonged by Gods commaundement only to the Priest, doth compare the obiect or matter of both their Ministeries togeather, affirming, that the Priestly dignity respecting the matter vvhere∣about it is exercised, which is heauenly and spiritual, doth farre exceede the other, for the * 1.549 matter thereof is but earthly and outvvarde. His vvordes maketh his meaning plaine: The kingly thron (saith he) hath the administratiō of earthly thīgs and hath not beyonde this power, any further autho∣rity. But the throne of the Priest is placed in heauē, ād he hath authority to pronounce of heauēly businesses, who saith these thinges? the King of heauen him self: what so euerye lowse on earth, shalbe lowsed in hea∣uen also, what may be compared with this honour? Heauen taketh of the earth principal authority to iudge. For the iudge sitteth in the earthe: the Lorde (Christe) followeth the seruaunt, and what so euer this (seruaunt) iudgeth in the inferiour (partes) that same he (Christ) approueth in Heauen. Therefore the Priest stā∣deth a meane or mediatour betwixt God and mans nature, bringing vnto vs the benefites that come from thense (from Heauen) &c. These vvoordes of Chrysostome if they haue not an † 1.550 indifferent interpretour, that vvil make his vvordes by iuste circumstaunce to serue his meaning, and not to bind his meaning to his bare vvords, vvil make Heauē to (.662.)* 1.551 receiue authority of the earth: vvil proue Christ to be inferiour to the Priest, and the Priest to haue the mediation betvvixt God and man, by meanes vvhereof vve may receiue the Graces that cum∣meth from Heauen, vvhich mediation belongeth (.667.)* 1.552 onely to Christe.

Stapleton.

I commend you M. Horn: This is one of the ho∣nestest

partes that you haue plaied in al your answere. You haue truely set forth Chrysostomes words and at large for the former part: I would haue wisshed that ye should haue set in also thre or foure lines more that immediatly doe fol∣low: wel I wil supply the residewe, least ye waxe to proude of this litle praise. Therefore the Priest, saith Chrysostomus, standeth a meane or a mediatour betwixt God and mās nature, bringing to vs the benefits that come frōthence (frō heauē) and cayring our petitions thither, reconciling our Lord when he is angrie to both natures, and deliuering vs, when we offend oute of his hands. And therfore God hath subiected the Kinges head vnder the Priests hāds,* 1.553 teachīg vs, that this Prīce (the Priest) is greater then he. For why? that, that is the inferiour taketh blessing of that which is the better. So far Chrysostomus. As ye began liberally and freely, in supplying the former parte of the sentēce of Chrysostomus: So I meruel, that ye breake of so sone, and went not through with it. But yet I haue the lesse meruel, cōsidering that this was not don by chaūce or casualty, but of a set, and a shrewde wily purpose. For yf ye had set out at large the whole as we haue don, ye had de∣stroyed your own pelting glose wherwith ye glosed Gre∣gory Nazianzene. For Chrysostom writing how the King submitteth his head to the priest, euen as Gregory did, and that the priestes authority is aboue the kīgs authority, mea∣neth of an other matter thē preachīg, as it euidētly appereth by his words: ād so may he serue against your folish deuice for a good interpretour, of Gregory Naziāzene. Whom as I may wel take for a good interpretour: So I merueil, what he shal be, that ye wil take for an indifferēt intetpretor of Chry∣sostomes sentēce. For by your iudgemēt an indifferēt inter∣pretor nedes must we haue, to make his words and his mea∣nīg agree: ād yet your self stele close away without any fur∣der

answer, or any interpretatiō at all geuen, differēt or in∣differēt. The sentēce as Chrysost. vttereth it, your weke sto∣mack cā in no wise digest. And al the world hitherto this .xi. hōdred yeres ād more, God be thāked, hath digested it wel inough tyl now of late your new Apostles Luther ād Caluī, cā neither abide Chrysostō, that saith, ād most truly,* 1.554 that the priest is a mediatour betwen God ād vs, nor Christ hīself, who faith to the priest: whose syns ye bind vpō earth, shalbe boūd in heauē also. Here we must nedes haue these new Apostles as indifferēt interpretors, against Chrysostō and Christ hī self: lest that Christes office, to whō this mediatiō belōgeth on∣ly, be takē away, by the priest, yea lest Christ be made infe∣riour to the priest. Suerly if there were such daūger in the matter, it were high time to loke wel vpō Chrysostom: nei∣ther if this surmise were true, shuld he be called by my iudg∣mēt any more the goldē mouth Chrysostom.* 1.555 But (God be thāked) there is much more feare then neadeth. Yea al this is but an hipocritical feare and sanctimony, such as the wic∣ked Kīg of Israel pretēded, whē he tore and cut his apparel reading the King of Siria his letters, that sent to him Naamā, that he might be cured of his Leprosy. But the Prophet He liseus was neuer a whit offended with those letters. And as Heliseus was a mediatour betwē God ād Naamā for the cu¦ring of his bodily leprosy: so is the priest a mediator betwē God ād his people for the curīg of their spiritual leprosy in their soule: without any preiudice or blemish to Christes me¦diatiō. For Christ is the only mediatour, as both God ād mā, that is, as a meritorius and effectuall mediation, valuable through it self: the priest or prophet is mediator as mā only:* 1.556 that is, as a minister ād meanes ōly instrumētal, not effectual: called ād chosen to such office by Grace especial, not of hī selfe, but through his commissiō only effectual or valuable.

And so is Moses, so are others also, called in scripture me∣diatours. I would now knowe of this scrupulouse conscien∣sed man concerninge the other poynt, whether, in case a prince did appoint any one man in his realme, to geue out his pardon in his name to such as were offendours, and that no man shoulde ones loke to enioy any pardon, but hauing recourse to this his deputy: I say I woulde knowe, whe∣ther by thys the prince shoulde be counted inferiour to his subiecte.

But what meane I, to defende that renowmed auncient Father and his golden mouth, against the foolish blast of so lewde an horners mouth? What nede I seeke any defence for the wordes alleaged by M. Fekenham, when that, M. Horne is quite ouerblowen with his owne blast: telling vs by his own allegation, yea truely, and out of the said Chry∣sostome, that the king hath the administratiō of earthly things, and beside this power hath no further authority. The matter also of his Ministery, sayth M. Horne, is but earthly and outwarde. Ergo say I for M. Fekenham, the kinge is not su∣preame head in all causes Ecclesiasticall, or spiritual. What say I in all causes? Nay not in one cause mere spirituall or Ecclesiasticall: as hauing nothing to doe in any such, but in worldly and earthly causes only. And thus ye see, howe wel theis two fathers, Gregory Nazianzene, ād Iohn Chry∣sostome the two greate pillers of the Greke Church, may be easely drawen without any great force, to helpe M. Fe∣kenhams cause.

Here nowe by the way, may be noted, that M. Horne, for al his great reading, and for all the want of reading that he fyndeth in M. Fekenham, hath wonderfully ouershotte him selfe, and hath by his ouersight lost a ioly triumphante

matter that he might haue had, to haue triumphed vppon M. Fekēham. He might haue sayd, I pray you M. Fekēham: was Iulian the wicked Apostata a sheepe of Christes flock, being a renegate, a panyme, and a most cruel persequutour of the Christians? What? Did he shewe any reuerēce to the holy aulters? Did he reuerently submit his head vnder the priestes hands? This and much like rhetorik might M. Horn yf either his readinge, or his remembraunce woulde haue serued, haue here vttered against M. Fekenham. And to say the truth M. Horn, I must yelde and confesse, that ye haue founde one companion now, yea one Emperour I say, that neither reuerenced aulters, nor the priestes hands, no more then ye doe now. And therfore in dede lo, this obiectiō, yf it had come in time, would haue dressed M. Fekenham. But I trust, seing the faulte is found and amended to your hand, that ye wil fynd no great matter against him: neither could greatly before, being as it semeth his scribes fault, putting in Iulianum, for Valentem.

The .177. Diuision. fol. 125. a.

Novv sith in al these obiections hitherto, ye haue brought foorthe (.668.)* 1.557 nothinge at al, that eyther made not against your selfe, or that maketh any vvhitte for you, it is more then time yee dravve to Conclusion, and bicause no good Conclusion, can follovve of euil premisses, yee vvere dryuen to conclude, and finishe vp your obiection vvith the like patchinge, vvresting and (.669.)* 1.558 falsifying your Authours, as ye did before: and therefore in the Conclusiō, like to him, that hauing no right to any, claymed all, to obteine somevvhat at the least: Euen so you, to prooue that your Bisshops, and priestes haue al iurisdi∣ction Ecclesiastical, alleage a peece of a sentence out of Ignatius, vvhich barely by it self recited, geeueth not onely all that vnto the Bisshoppe, but all thinges belonging to the Church besides, and that no man may do any thing, not so much as tol a bell to seruice or svveepe the Church, but only the Bisshop must dooe all (.670.)* 1.559 alone. VVhich conclusion some of your complices vvould so litle allovve, as those vvhom yee vvuld ouerburden, and yee your self might

go play you, as one that had naught to doo, in any thinge perteining to the Church. But to helpe the matter, and to make Ignatius vvords plain vvith∣out absurditie, you muste take vvith you the residue of the sentence that fol∣lovveth, vvhich yee leaue out, of The Sacrament of Thankesgeuing, and (.671.)* 1.560 Celebrating the Diuine Seruice, and then it shall easely appeare, that Ignatius talketh of such doīgs of a bishop, as in deede declare his functiō and office, ād yet furthereth no vvhit the Cōclusiō of your obiectiō.

Stapleton.

* 1.561The conclusiō of M. Fekenhams obiections being knitte vp with a sentence of Ignatius, that is, that no man shoulde doe any thing in matters ecclesiastical without the bishops consent: M. Horne answereh, that he is fayne to finish vppe his conclusion with patching, wresting, and falsifying his Au∣thors. He sayth, that M. Fekenham is like to one, that hauing no right to any, claimeth al, to obtayne somwhat at the least. and being set in his mery mode, he returneth Ignatius sentence by the which M. Fekenham would challenge as he saith al iurisdiction to bisshops, so pretely and pleasantly vpon him, that him selfe might goe play, as one that had nothing to doe in any thing perteyning to the Church, no not so much as to tol a bel to seruice, or sweepe the Church, but that the bisshoppe must do yt all alone. And then sadly falling to a graue exposition of Ignatius, and to take away all absurdity, he byddeth M. Fe∣kenham to take the residew of the sentence with him, that he lefte out, of the Sacrament of thanks geuinge, and celebra∣ting the diuine seruice: and then he sayth it shall easely ap∣peare, that Ignatius furthereth nothing M. Fekenhams cō∣clusion. I like yt well M. Horn, that you, such a feate myn∣ser and minisher, such a Macarian parer and pincher of your Authours sentences, and narrations throughe owt your whole booke, do nowe cal for the whole sentence of Igna∣tius at M. Fekenhams hands. Your request is so reasonable, that it may not be denied you. Nay you must nedes haue it,

and your reader to, and it were for no more, but to shewe him of your good graciouse dealing: who euen there, where you fynd faulte with M. Fekenham, for not taking the resi∣dewe of the sentence with him, do your self fondly abuse your reader and Ignatius withall, not daringe ons to recite the whole sentence following. For if you had, you should haue stopped therwith your owne fowle blasphemouse mouth, against the massing and sacrificing priesthod,* 1.562 as you call it. And your reader shuld haue sene, that you might as∣wel cal Ignatius one of the Apostolical clergie of the Romish Antichrist, for this pointe, as those that you commonly call papists. And seing you charge (but most vntruly) M. Feken∣ham, for patching, wresting, and falsifying, to furnishe vp his conclusion withall, let vs see howe worshipfully and howe sowndly you conclude your owne answere. M. Fekenham telleth you of a general rule, out of Ignatius, recitinge his wordes truly, though shortly. You leauing out that which Ignatius sayth in dede,* 1.563 bring vs forth that which he sayeth not. For seing you set forth your interpretation with a di∣stinct letter, theis wordes must be taken, as your authours wordes, and not as your owne, according to your promise made at the beginning. Nowe there are no such wordes in the Latin translation, as you reherse, as the formall wordes of Ignatius. In dede he nameth Eucharistia, but the worde Sacrament he hath not, neither theis wordes celebrating the diuine seruice. Neither do you truly expresse the Greke sen∣tence. We graunt you neuerthelesse, that it is a sacramēt of thāks geuing: but now we speake not whether it may be so called, but whether your author so calleth it. Againe I aske you, what is the thīg ther that is so excellēt ād thāks worthy, that the whole is called * 1.564 a thāks geuīg? Suerly it is so called,

because there is present in the said blessed Sacrament, the real body and bloud of Christ, left to his Churche to be of∣fred for a remembraunce of his death: and to be most reue∣rently to our great and spiritual comfort receiued, as ofte as we are therevnto godly disposed, and worthely prepared. This is the pretiouse dishe that Christ feadeth his Churche withall.

* 1.565It is writen, that Cleopatra the Quene of Aegyt exce∣ded in sumptuouse feasting, and that she put an excellente pearle, and resolued it with vineger, and then dranke it vp. There be that do valew the price of the said pearle at fiftie thousande poundes of our money. But it is an other ma∣ner of dishe, and of much higher price that Christ hath left vs, for this oure spiritual banket, euen his owne most pre∣ciouse and blessed body: the same I say that died vpon the Crosse for vs. Great cause haue we then to render most humbly to our graciouse good Lorde our moste bounden and dewtifull thankes for such a feaste. And most iust cause haue we M. Horne, to curse your M. Caluin, and all your sacramentary sect, and your late damnable articles, that like most wicked stewardes haue cōueyed away this best dishe, and do feede Gods people, with a peece of bare bread, in stede of Christes most precious body,* 1.566 bereuing Christes Churche of this most comfortable meate. But herein ye followe your fathers Caluin, Zwin∣glius, Wicleff, Berengarius, and such other that the deuil sturred vp against this blessed Sacrament: yea anon after the Apostles time, and in the time of Ignati{us}. For he doth write of such heretiks as would not (by the report also of Theodoretus) admitte, the Eucharistia, and the sacrifice: for that they did not cō∣fesse

the Eucharistia to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesu Christe, the which did suffer, for our sinnes, and which the father by his goodnes did resuscitate. See M. Horn the cause why we may wel call this Sacrament, the Sacrament of Eucharistia, that is, of thanks geuing, because there is presente the body of Christ, and offered to. The body of Christ being really pre∣sent in the sacrament, and the oblation that the Church ma∣keth of the same, ye can not abide M. Horne. Ignatius in this place by M. Fekenham recited, maketh expresse men∣tion of the masse, and of this oblation, and as it were ex∣pounding the wordes by M. Fekenham rehersed, sayth, that yt is not lawfull neither to offer, nor to make sacrifice, nor to celebrate masse without the bisshop.* 1.567 The like he speaketh other where: doe nothing, sayth he to He∣ron the Deacon, without the bisshoppes, for they are priests: they do baptise, they do offerre sacrifice, they gyue holy orders, they put their hands vppon men, thou doest minister to them, as S. Stephen did at Hierusalem to Iames, and to the priests.* 1.568 But M. Horne full true∣ly, and full lyke hym selfe, telleth vs a tale of the Sacramente of thankes geuinge, and celebratinge the diuine seruice: and then, that this place doth not one whitte further M. Fekenhams conclusion. But as we haue concluded you euen by Ignatius hym selfe a duble heretike, both for the spoyling vs of the pre∣sence of Christes body, and of the oblation of the same: so shal we conclude you a lier, in that you de∣ny, that this place maketh any thinge for M. Feken∣ham. For lo: thus he argueth.* 1.569

The priests them selues in matters Ecclesiastical, shuld do nothing belonging to their office without

the will and consent of the bishops. Ergo much lesse the lay men or prince, which are no spirituall men, should medle in matters Ecclesiastical, especially they shuld not change the olde religion, they shuld not abolish the blessed Sacramēts, the prince shoulde not call him selfe supreame head of the Church, the parliament should not annexe all spiritual iuris∣diction to the crowne at least without the consent of the bisshops. What say I without the consent? Nay against the full and conformable assent of all the catholyk bishops, and the whole conuocation, offering theire most humble peti∣tion, and supplication to the parliament, that there might be no such alteratiō. And yet the parliamēt Law of one realm for the alteration of relligion, yf al the bishops had consen∣ted, were not a sufficient discharge in conscience. When ye can wel soyle this argument M. Horn, then I suppose ye shall fynd M. Fekenham somwhat conformable to your re∣quest, in the taking of the othe.

Againe M. Fekenhā prayeth you, to take the whole sen∣tence with you: and to take the paines but to reade vj. or vij. lynes further, and to consider what you shal fynd there. That is: that no man is more honorable in the Church, then the bisshop, and that we must honour him firste, and the king after him. Of the which sort of sentences his epistles are ful, dire∣ctly impugning your newe pretensed supremacy: And now ye neade nothing to feare that, which ye tell vs for a great incōueinence, that if Ignatius sentēce be not wel and wise∣ly weighed, the bishop must both toll the bell to seruice, and sweepe the Church al lone. This is but a poore office for a bishop, and al this highe fetche neded nothing, sauing that, after this your long and paineful trauayle takē to con∣fute so clerkly, theis fewe obiectiōs of M. Fekē. ye thought good

to refresh ād quickē your weary sprites, with this your me∣ry sportīg. And yet take ye hede, that it turne not vpō your self M. Horne in very good ernest. For of this once I am as∣sured, that if ye measure the matter by the old canōs of the aūciēt Church, you that mainteyn so many heynouse here∣sies, if you may haue any office at al in the Church, you cā haue no better, thē to toll the bel to seruice, ād sweepe the Church, or suche like. And yet I doubt, whether you may haue as much as that office, beīg for theis your heresies with bel, boke, ād cādel accursed, ād by the Church besome, that is, by the sentēce of excōmunication so cleane sweeped out of the Church, that as I sayd, I doubt whether by the olde canōs ye may medle with the basest office of al perteyning to the Church. And yet for any yl wil I beare to your per∣son, in case ye were a good ād a catholike mā, I could for my part be cōtent, that ye enioyed your bishoprike stil, ād that as amply as did any of the most Catholik prelats before you.

M. Horne. The .178. Diuision. pag. 125. b.

So that your Conclusion being yet as insufficient as the rest, you are fain•• to adioyne an other peece thereunto: VVherein although yee shevve hovve euil aioygner you bee, to adioyne those tvvo peeces of sentences togeather in one Conclusion, that are of cleane sundry matters, yet in one poynt yee haue made them both agree, that as yee vvrested the one, so ye not only vvrest, but flatly (.672.)* 1.570 falsifie the other, and yet neither of thē both stand you in any steade to helpe your obiection, much lesse to conclude the same. For first, hovv dooth this follovve: S. Augustine saith (say you) of the Doctours of the Church: That they beleeue, I beleeue: that they holde, I holde: that they teache, I teache: that they preache, I preache:yeelde to them, and thou shalt yelde to me (.673.)* 1.571 Ergo, Bisshoppes and Priestes haue povver and authority to make lavves, orders, and Decrees, and to vse all cohibitiue iurisdiction ouer their flockes and cure. Novve if your freendes, that haue beleeued hitherto as you beleeue, haue helde, as you holde, taught as you teache, preached as you preache, and belee∣uing

the vpright dealing and conscience, that you pretende, haue yelded vnto you herein, do but a litle examine your (.674.)* 1.572 false dealing vvit•• those Fa∣thers, vvhom you vvould seeme so vvholy to follovve, I thinke they vvould no longer beleeue you, holde vvith you, nor yelde vnto you, but suspect you as a deepe dissembler, or rather abhorre you, as an open sclaunderer and belyer, not only of me, but of the aunciēt Fathers themselues. For first I vvould learne of you, vvhere S. Augustine hath those vvoords, in al his sixe bookes against Iulian, Istis cede, & mihi cedes, if he haue them, shevve vvhere: if he haue them not, then hovve ye follovve S. Augustine? Hovv dare you impudēt∣ly say, ye preache and teache that he did, vvhen ye manifestlye (.675.)* 1.573 mangle, alter, peruert, and corrupt the saying that he did teache. In dede for fashions fake ye cite a peece of S. Augustins sen∣tence, that they beleue I beleue, &c. but for that vvhich follovveth: istis cede, & me non caedes: yelde to thē, and thou shalt not strike or whippe me: you (.676.)* 1.574 haue put in these vvordes, istis cede, & mihi non cedes, yelde to them, and thou shalt yelde to me: and yet this corrupting of the sentence maketh it serue no vvhit the more for your purpose, but vttereth your falshood: that belike vvil not spare to corrupt that vvhich maketh flat against you, that thus vse to corrupt this, vvhich maketh neither to nor fro vvith you, nor against me. But as S. Augustine vvriting in the same matter against Iulian, a Dis∣ciple of Pelagius, an (.677.)* 1.575 English Monke, dealing vvith S. Augustine, as ye haue don vvith me, said to Iuliā: so say, I to you. Ye feine me to say that I say not, to conclud that I cō∣clude not,* 1.576 to graunte that I graunte not, and you cō∣clude to your self that vvhich I deny,* 1.577 &c. In dede you haue laboured more to finde out those reasons which ye might better vtter against your selfe, than against me. But in such a cause ye should not neede to take such peines, yf you had any shame in you. S. Augustin in these bookes against (678)* 1.578 Iuliā, as in his other against the (679) Donatistes, (as I haue declared before) did attribute vnto them∣perours and Princes, the Bisshops and Priestes, such Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction as I haue don. Of the same minde that he vvas herein,

vvere also (680)* 1.579 those Fathers, that he oyteth. VVherfore you vvil novv I trust, according to your promise, yelde and relente: If not to me for stubborne hart: yeat according to your conclusion to S. Augustine, and the auncient Fathers, to beleue herein that they beleeue, to hold that they hold, to teache that they teache, to preache that they preache, and no more to vvringe, maime, slaū∣der and belie them. And than both I and all other faithfull Christians vvill both better beleeue you, and geue God thankes for you.

Stapleton.

M. Fekenham concluding his obiections with Ignatius adioyneth a general protestation of his faith taken out of blessed S. Augustin his bookes against the heretike Iulianus. Thus. That they belieue, I belieue: that they hold, I hold: that they teache, I teache: that they preache, I preach: yeld to thē and thow shalt yelde to me. Here doth M. Horne so reuell a∣gainst M. Fekenhā, as he hath not don the like in all his an∣swere. First he denieth, that of this place of S. Augustine may any good sequele be gathered, that Bishops may make lawes, or vse al cohibitiue iurisdiction. Then as hauing now M. Fekenham in such a fowle euident faulte, as by no pre∣text maye be couered, he thinketh that for this false dea∣ling, his owne frendes wil take him, for a deape dissembler, yea rather will abhorre him as an open slaunderer and be∣lier of the fathers, as a manifest mangler, alterer, peruerter, and corrupter of S. Augustine. For in stede of istis cede, & me non caedes, yelde to them, and thou shalt strike or whip me, he hath put in: istis cede, & mihi cedes. Yelde to them, and thow shalt yelde to me. And then saith further, that belike M. Fekenham will not sticke to corrupte that which maketh flatte against him, that thus vseth to corrupt that, which maketh neither to nor fro, with him self, nor against him selfe. After this he rolleth in S. Augustines sentences,

and layth them forth against M. Fekēhā, for this his euil dea∣ling with him, as S. Augustin doth against Pelagius a Brit∣tayn monke. Finally as though now the battel were wōne, and a ful conquest made vpon poore. M. Fekenham, he cal∣leth vpon him to yelde and relente. Mary sir this is a terri∣ble blaste in dede blowen out of Maister Hornes mouth for his farewell: This is such a blustering tempest sturred vp by our newe Aeolus, that (as it seemeth) M. Fekenham must nedes be ouerblowen with the vehemency of yt. But we will yet seeke out, and see the very foundation, and the original cause of all this broyle. By al likelihodde M. Fekenham hath founde some good apparance of great ad∣uantage in corrupting these wordes of S. Augustin. For no man lightly is so doltish, to vse such foule and sluttish shifts, without some cōfort and hope to further his matter by. Ac∣cording to the old saying Cui bono. Nay saith M. Horn: The corrupting of the sentence serueth no whit the more for M. Fekenhās purpose. No doth it not M. Horne? and would M. Fekenhā deale so fondly by opē falshod to staine his ho∣nesty ād for whippe me, trāslate, yelde to me, without any be¦nefit of his cause? Suerly thē were he worthy (aswel as I loue him) to be twise whipped, once for falshod, ād ons more for folly. Therefore this your accusation euē by your own tale, and by Cui bono, is vtterly incredible.

And yet yf he had so falsly and so folishly demeaned him self, seing it toucheth no part of the substance of the questiō that lieth betwixt you ād him: you playe with him yf not a folish, yet to vehemēt an oratour: ād haue sauced your ora∣tory with ouer much gal ād egernes. And for al your blow∣ing and blustering, your great hil bringeth forth nothing, but a poore Aesops mouse.

Yet say you, this is a naughty part of him, so manifestly to māgle and to corrupt S. Augustin. Perchaunce good reader thou dost now looke for an answer, and how M. Fekēham may saue his honesty, agaīst this mighty accusatiō. And suer∣ly what answer I may best make, I can not redely tel: but this will I tell you in the meane season, that such as vse to play their part very wel otherwise, yet somtimes at the ve∣ry last cast, for some folish disorder they are hissed and clap∣ped out by the multitude. With what shoting thē, ād clap∣ping ought this waynscot faced mā, to be driuen, as it were frō this stage, that hauīg throughout his book plaied so ma∣ny foule ād vilanouse parts, for his Valete ād Plaudite, plaieth as euill or a worse part, then he hath plaied in all the resi∣dewe of his booke?

There be no moe examples of S. Augustins works prin∣ted, that I haue sene, but four: the first printed at Basil, the secōd and third at Paris, the fourth at Liōs: ād al these haue istis cede, & mihi cedes. Yeld to them,* 1.580 and thou shalt yeld to me. Only the later editiō of Paris readeth in the text as M. F. readeth, but putteth in the margent, as a diuerse reading, & me non caedes, as M. Horne ful peuishly and wretchedly would make folke beleue it should only be read. What de∣testable impudency thē is this, for M. Horn, to crie out vpō M. F. being a poore prisoner, after this outragiouse sort, and for the allegatiō of this place, so sternely ād fiercely to vaūt, saying: How dare ye impudētly say; ye preache ād teache that he did, whē ye manifestly mangle, alter, peruerte, and corrupt the saying that he did teache? And to aske of him where Saint Augustine hath these woordes in all his sixe bookes a∣gainst Iulian, istis cede, & mihi cedes? The truth is, thoughe as I sayde, all these copyes haue these woordes in this

order, yet by forgetfulnes M. Fekenham hath not set in the booke. And wil ye see, howe wel the matter is amended by M. Horne? After all this ruffling and blustering he him self, hauing al copies against him, nameth not, either any of theis sixe bokes, or any place, where any boke of S. Augustines should be printed, that shoulde haue any such text of suche tenour as he doth alleage. And yet doth M. Horne (as ye haue hearde) as though it were right true, yea and a synne against the holy Ghost, all to reuile M. Fekenham: and lea∣ueth not there: but that, which S. Augustine most truely ob∣iected to Pelagius, doth he most vntruely obiect against M. Fekenham: euen as truely, as that the sayd Pelagius was an English monke, who was dead and buried, before the Sa∣xons entred Britanny. For Pelagius died in the time (at the least of Theodosius the seconde) and the Saxons entred the realme in the tyme of Marcianus, as witnesseth S. Bede. And before Britanny was commonly called England, Pela∣gius was dead at the lest one hundred yeres.* 1.581 But before it was christened, more then a hundred and a halfe.

But nowe concerninge the matter yt selfe, whether the Coūcels, the fathers, both olde and nowe that you M. Horn haue alleaged, and especially S. Augustine may not truely say to you, that he said to Pelagius: I referre it to the indif∣ferent reader. Suerly there is none of them al (as may easely appeare to the diligent reader) but may iustly say to you. M. Horne, ye fayne me to say that, I say not: to conclude, that I conclude not:* 1.582 to graunt that I graunte not: and you conclude to your self that, which, I denie. Againe. In dede ye haue laboured more to fynd owt those reasons, which ye might better vtter a∣gainst your self,* 1.583 than against me. But in such a case, ye shuld not nede to take suche paynes yf yow had shame in you. Whether I

say truely or no in this, I referre thee, good Reader, to my whole answere, and those that wil see it cōpendiously pro∣ued, to my preface, and to the Conclusion of the thirde booke.

And here woulde I faine breake of my confutation of M. Hornes answere, to S. Augustines testimony, sauing that he doth otherwise so excedingly belie S. Augustine here, that I may in no wise altogether passe ouer this shamelesse demeanure. You say then M. Horne, that S. Augustin aswel in his bookes against Iulian, as in his bookes against the Dona∣tistes, is of your minde towching the ecclesiastical supremacy in Princes, as ye say ye haue declared. And that the Fathers whome S. Augustine citeth against Iuliā, are of the same minde also. Shewe me then good M. Horne, but one authority out of S. Augustine, or any one of the Fathers, whome he re∣herseth, which are Cyprianus, Ireneus, Basilius, Hilarius,* 1.584 Am∣brosius, Hieronymus, and Pope Innocentius with others, ey∣ther that the Pope hath not the superiority in matters Ec∣clesiastical, or that Princes haue the same. All that hitherto ye haue browght out of S. Augustine, with whose sayinges ye haue filled vp some leaues, reacheth no farther, thē that Princes may by their lawes punishe suche, as be disobediēte to the Churche lawes: for the whiche thing no man doth contende with you. But we woulde fayne see you ones drawe to the question yt selfe, and to shewe some open place of S. Augustine, either for the Princes or againste the Popes supremacy: wherin seing ye haue done nothing,* 1.585 we wil assay what we call say for the Popes primacy by S. Augustine.

To auoyde tediousnes we will reherse but a fewe testi∣monies, and suche onely, as we haue taken out of his bokes

againste the saide Donatistes,* 1.586 and Pelagians. Who is it then M. Horne, but S. Augustine that writinge againste the Donatistes, saith that the principality of S. Peters Apostleship is to be preferred, before any other bishoprike? Who is it but S. Augustine, that vseth to bringe againste the Donatistes, the autho∣rity of the sea of Rome as a singular and a principal authoritye? Who ys yt but S. Augustine, that writinge againste the saide Donatistes sayeth, the sea of Peter, is the rocke that the proude gates of hel do not ouercome? Let vs now come a litle to the Pela∣gians.

Their capitain Pelagius, and an other archehe∣retike of theire secte called Caelestius, were condēned by Pope Innocentius and Sozimus, throwgh out at the Christian world. They were also condemned in A∣phrike by the bishops there. Yet S. Augustine wri∣teth not, that they were condēned by thē through out al the world, as he doth of the said two Popes: because the sentence of the Aphricane Bishoppes bounde the Aphricanes onely: the Popes sentence bounde the whole worlde. And therfore the sayed Bishoppes, after they had condemned those here∣tikes, desired Pope Innocentius to confirme their sen∣tence: which thing Innocentius did, as appereth by his answere to the foresaide Bishoppes, yet extant in S. Augustines works. Which letters geue a verie ample testimony for the Popes supreamacye: and sheweth amōg other things, that yt was a rule kepte throwgh out al the worlde, that in graue▪ and weighty matters ecclesiastical, and for the determinatiō of mat∣ters

of faith,* 1.587 nothing was wont to be done without the Popes consent and authority. Againe S. Augustine writing against the saide Pelagiās, sendeth his boks to Pope Bonifacius, to examine and amende thē, yf any thing misliked him: and saieth: that the saide Boni∣facius had the preeminēce in the pastoral watchtowre. S. Augustine also in this boke against Iulian the Pe∣lagian, numbring vp a number of holy and aunciēte Bishoppes, as Ireneus, Cyprianus, Hilarius, and others, saieth: that Pope Innocentius though he were later in time, yet was he before them, for his place and dignity. He doth vrge and presse very muche the saide Iu∣lian with the authority of the Apostolicall sea and of the sayde Innocentius. Yea and that for an he∣resy, that your Apostle Caluin, and our good new bretherne in Englande, both in theire preachinges and teachinges do mainteine: that is, that children thoughe they be not baptised, shall yet that notwith∣standing, enioy the euerlastinge life. These testi∣monies do fully declare S. Augustines minde, tou∣ching the Popes Supremacy, quite repugnante to the doctrine of this your booke. Wherby yt ap∣pereth, that ye litle regarde, howe and after what sorte, ye doe alleadge hym: and that ye doe not alleadge him, for any good matter ye fynde in him, but onely to make an owtwarde shewe and ap∣parance, to the vnlearned and vnskilful people, to beguile them wyth smothe talke, and fayre wordes.

The .179. Diuision. pag. 126. b.

M. Fekenham.

After long expectation, and many promises, his L. fi∣nal answeare to the sayd obiections, was as hereafter fo∣loweth. For as much as I doo perceiue, that you are not to be resolued in this matter, I shal here stay and procede no further with you in the same: and like as you haue bene, so you shalbe vnto me most hartely welcome: You shal lacke nothinge that is in my house to pleasure you: And from hencefoorth I shal leaue to haue any further talke or con∣ference with you in these controuersies of Religion. And for all such talke and wryting as hath passed already be∣twene vs, I shal perfourme this my promise, both first and last made vnto you, that you shalbe well assured, not to suffer any hurte or dammage thereby.

M. Horne.

You deliuered this obiection vnto me in vvritinge, betvvixt Easter and VVhitsontyde, about the ende of Aprill: vvithin tvvo daies folovving, vvhen I had redde the same, I tould you, that in the collection of your common places, you vvere much abused, for that you had mistaken thē, and obserued no iuste circumstances of the authorities, vvhereby to haue knovven the authours meaning: And so vvee continued in debatinge and reasoning, from time to time, about this matter of Iurisdiction, and others, vntil the beginning of Sep∣tember folovving, before vvhich time, your obstinacy grevve so much, that I vvas forced, through your vnorderly behauiour, to restreigne you of your licē∣tious talke, and sequester you from conference vvith any, hauinge so muche before abused your self, and especially in mine absence, and I vvas the rather moued so to d••o, for that I perceiued al that I did, vvas but in vaine: as at di∣uerse times and often, I repeated that vnto you, obstinatelie bente to the contrarie, meaninge by such stoutenesse to recouer your credite, vvhiche

through your inconstancy vvas so empaired amongest your friendes. I sayd, at your first comming, and many times after, you beinge sente by the Ho∣nourable Councel, that you vvere vvelcome, vvhich by good proufe, although vtterly vvithout any your good deserte, yee founde true. I did say, that I vvould leaue to haue any further talke or conferēce vvith you, touching mat∣ters of Religiō, or any other: but you shuld haue shevved the time and place, vvhere, and vvhen these vvoordes vvere spoken: I spake them the Sonday at after diner, vvhen in your gallorie, I did reprooue you of your disorders, and therefore restraigned you of suche libertie, as before yee had enioyed. The promise made vnto you, not to vtter that vvhich yee should say by vvaie of reasoning, in prieudize of the Q. Maiesties Lavves, I haue hitherto, and yet doo firmelie keepe to you, as you can not iustlie chardge me vvith the contrarie, in anie particuler pointe, and so you haue susteined no hurte or domage therebie.

M. Fekenham.

The perfourming of his promise was as hereafter fo∣loweth. First there was a rumour spersed abroade very shortly after by his seruantes, that I had subscribed to certaine articles, tenne in number.

Second, there was by his seruantes a further rumour raised, of my recantation, time and place appointed therof to be at the Parishe Church of VValtham, where his L. did then manure and abide.

Thirdely, his L. did at his open table, and in the praesence of many, chardge me with the change of my Religion nine times, and beinge putte in further remem∣brance by one M. Denny who was a Sogener with him, his L. saied, that I had altered and chaunged my Religiō, not onely nine times, but nineteene times, and that I was of no Religion.

Fourth, his L. did permitte the saied M. Denny at his open table to to much to abuse me. Where the saied M. Dennie did openly and before manie, chardge me with these three crimes following. First, with incontinencie of life, thus saying: That if I had not as many children, as he, he did knowe, that I had deserued to haue so manie. Second, with glottonie, affirming that I was an Epicure. Third and last, with hypocrisie, and that I was a greate dissembler and an hypocrite. The saied M. Dennie being a man to me wholly vnknowen. His L. did shewe him self openly to be so well pleased with these his slaunderouse wordes, that he ministred iust occasion for me to thinke, that his L. had procured the saied M. Dennie therevnto.

Fifth, by so much the more I had good cause to thinke so, for that his L. did immediatly therevpon, viz. within one houre after, in fortifiyng the saied talke, commaunde me to close imprisonment.

Sixth and last, after that he had kept me sixe weekes in close imprisonment, by his L. complaint I am nowe at this present prisoner in the Tower, much contrary to his promise before made.

The premisses being true (lyke as they are all moste true) being to openly commited, and before to many wit∣nesses to be denied: your Honour may easily iudge, with what wisedome, discretion, and charitie I haue hene vsed, I being a poore man, the Q. Maiesties prisonner, and to

his L. committed (I dare boldly affirme) to be well vsed. It was very straunge to me, to see suche behauiour openly shewed at the table of such a man. Surely for mine owne parte, I was neuer so vsed, neither openly nor priuately at any mans table before in my whole life. My humble sute therefore vnto your Honour is, that proufe and trial may he had of my trueth herein, and what my deseruings hath bene for the whole time of mine abode there. In due search and examination hereof I doubt not but there shal fall out matter betwixt vs, either of much simplicitie and trueth, or els of greate crafte and falsehood: either of ho∣nest, vertuouse and godly, or els dishonest, vitiouse and vngodly vsage▪ and either of much light, learning, and knowledge, or els of very grosse ignoraunce, and palpable darkenesse: let it fall and light on the whiche side it shall happe, vppon the triall and examination made, I doubt not, but that your Honour shall haue a full shewe and a sufficient proufe made, of euery thing that hath passed betweene vs. There may be deniall made for a shifte and some short time: but for any long time it may not possibly endure, euery thing being so openly committed and done, so diuerse and manie beyng of knowledge and witnesse thereof.

M. Horne

To this challenge of promise breache, in these syxe pointes: Truely I knovve not of any rumour spredde of you, by any of my seruauntes, or other∣vvise

that yee subscribed to any Articles, no yet euer herde any thing hereof, before I savve the same reporte in your booke published: And if any suche ru∣mour vvere spredde by any my seruauntes or other, you shoulde haue named him, that he might receiue condigne punishment therefore.

Seconde, as to the further rumour of your Recantation, I say likevvise I vnderstoode nothinge but by your ovvne reporte in your booke, and ther∣fore referring the Authour to be punished accordingly, I thinke the punish∣ment ought to light vppon your selfe.

Thirdly, as to my chardge of your changinge in Religion .ix. times, yee .xix. times, I saide so, and that (.681.)* 1.588 truely vppon proufe of your vnconstāt affirming and denying, not so fevve times, as I had good experience oft in you, and can haue vvitnes in the same.

Fourthly, touchinge your abusing by M. Denny, yee misreporte the Gen∣tleman, as to any thinge that euer vvas spoken before me. But if any suche vvere, it vvas as I herde say at my retourne home (for I vvas abroade in preachinge vvhan suche scoffinge talke vvas betvvixte you) by occasion of some talke ministred on your parte to M. Denny, partely by vvay of merie talke betvvixt you tvvaine, and partly sturred vp by your vnseemely vvords, and yet none of all these in my hearinge. But in the last daie, vvhan I restraigned your liberty, you did so much before me at my table prouoke the saide gentleman by calling him Epicure, for that he fasted not as ye saied, that I, fearing least M. Denny like a younge man shoulde geue some euill vvordes againe, vvilled him to say nothing, for that I my selfe vvoulde ansvveare the matter for him: Mine ansvveare vvas, that I meruailed vvhy you vvould cal him Epicure: for if you so thought, because he did eate fleashe, and neuer fishe, I saied, he might (.682.)* 1.589 so vvelfast vvith fleashe, as vvith fishe: but if it vvere for that he vsed not abstinency, I saied in that M. Denny did more then you: for vvhere you had euerie daie in the vveeke your (.683.)* 1.590 three meales, fridaie and other, the gentleman vvas conten∣ted three daies in a vveeke, vvith one meale a daie, and neuer did eate aboue tvvo. And as it is vntrue, that either M. Denny vvas a man to you vtterly vnknovhen, beinge conuersant togeather in one house a quarter of a yeere before, and in famil••ar company, yea sought many times by you to play at the bovvles, to vvalke in the parke, and to be mery togeather: so is it also vntrue, that I hearde you so abused as I coulde or did like therein,

and so vntruely dooe you surmise, that I shoulde procure M. Denny, by any meanes to abuse you, as yee malitiousely conceiue of me.

Fiftely, as to the restrainte of your liberty, vvhiche you cal close imprison∣ment, to haue ben for these talkes betvvixt M. Denny and you, vvithin one hovvre after: You knovve right vvel, that your restrainte vvas not vppon that occasion, but vppon your seemelie behauiour aboute other matters, vvhereof ye make no mention, least you shoulde haue prooued your self a Lier. After I had in fevve vvoordes calmed the storme that seemed vvoulde arise betvvixt M. Dennie and you, I entred into talke vvith you in matters of Religion, as I vvas vvont to doo dailie before. The talke vvas of venial and mortal sinne: you haue not forgottē the occasion, I am sure: for if you haue in your remembraunce the Monkish (.684.) Iebusites, you cal them Iesuites,* 1.591 you may remember, that a crosse that came from them, gaue the occasion of the talke in that matter. I proued that no (.685.)* 1.592 sinne is so venial as it could be remitted by any ceremonie: yea, there is no sinne but the same (.686.)* 1.593 of it selfe is mortal, and yet venial to be purged by the merites of Christe onelie: and that al sinnes, vvere they neuer so mortal, vvere neuerthelesse venial, sauing al only the sinne againste the holy Ghoste, vvhiche is irremissible. For this my saying, and other pointes vvhich I condēned, ye sel into such a rage, that ye not onely railed against the Bishop of Sarisburie saying; he vvas vt∣terlie vnlearned, and that he should neuer be hable to ansvvere M. Har∣dinges booke, but also openly called me almoste in plaine termes Heretique, and said, my doctrine whiche I preached (yet ye vvould neuer heare me) was erroneous, filthy, and blasphemous: so filthely your blasphe∣mous mouth, coulde raile against (.687.)* 1.594 Gods truthe. VVherupon, I, to staie you, saied alonely that those vvere vnmann••rlie vvordes to be spoken at mine ovvne table: and therfore vvould as thā say no more opēly vnto you there, but tolde you that after dinner I vvoulde shevve you more of my minde, betvvixt you and me. And so shortly after dinner, I came vp to you and there calling you into the Gallory of my house, adioining to your chamber, I put you in re∣mēbraunce of that vvhiche I had before oftentimes admonished you, of your outragious talke in mine absence, vsed oftentimes opēly at my table, vvhereof I had sondrie times geuē you vvarning, for that the same might breede peril to your selfe, blame to me, and offence to others. And bicause I foūd stil the cō∣tinuāce of that your misorder: yea, to be muche more vehemēt many times in

mine absence than in my presence: Therefore I vvilled you thenceforth to ab∣steine from conferring vvith anie man in any vvise at all, addinge that you should haue to your chamber, al things necessary, and vvhat meate you vvold competently appoint for your ovvne diet, vvhich ye had accordinglie. And although I did restraine you from comming to mie table, or to goe so much at large as you had doon: yet had you no other keper than you had before, vvhich vvas your ovvn man: you had a faire Gallory adioyning to your chā∣ber, opening to mie parke, your seruaūt a chamber by him self, next to yours, ye had Leades faire and large, on the vvhich ye might vvalke, and haue pro∣spect both ouer the Parkes, Gardeins, and Orchardes. And therevvith thrise in the vveake at the least, vvhiles I laie at VValtham, vvith one by me ap∣pointed, you vvalked abroade into the Parkes, Garden, and Orchard: and this you call your close emprisonment. Sixthly, touching my com∣plaint to the most honourable of you, vvherby you vvere remitted prisoner againe to the Tovver, vvhat the same vvas, their ho∣nours can vvel declare, if their pleasure so be: beinge suer that I haue not broken promise vvith you hitherto, in vttering your opi∣niō against the Lavves of the Realm, as I haue before said, vvhich ye shevved at anie time in the priuate conference. And so ye haue not anie cause to challenge me in that behalfe.

To conclude, by the premisses it maie appeare to the honourable as by a tast, vvhat sinceritie there is in you. Againe, that this your quarelling and (.688.)* 1.595 belying me by spreading this booke, vvas and is chieflie, to recouer your credit vvith those of your faction: vvho as I haue saied, had conceiued doubt of your reuolt, and to confirme them in their grounded (.689.)* 1.596 errour, and here∣vvith to bringe me and other suche as I am, into obloquie and hatred. And lastlie, to impugne and barke against the Q. Maiesties (.690.)* 1.597 Lavvfull and due authoritie, vvhich you and your com∣plices dailie labour to subuert: vvhich matter I referre to be fur∣ther considered, by the graue vvisdome of the moste honoura∣ble.

FINIS.

The .14. Chapter, of certaine priuate matters betwene M. Fekē∣ham and M. Horne. And of certaine especial heresies auouched by M. Horne, wherby to conclude, he concludeth himselfe a plaine heretike.

Stapleton.

THis being the last parte of all, standeth moste vppon mutuall accusations: M. Fekenham fynding him selfe greaued, that he should be missused at M. Hornes ta∣ble, and there to be noted of incontinencie, gluttonie, and hypocrisie: that rumours should be spread abrode by M. Hornes seruantes of his subscription and recantation: and finally that contrary to M. Hornes promise made to hym, that he should suffer no domage or hurte for any wordes passed betwixt them, he was first restrained of his libertie accustomable by M. Horne, and kepte there close prisoner vj. wekes: and afterward by his procurement remitted to the Towre.

M. Horne on the other side denieth, that euer he was priuie to any such rumour, and complayneth as fast vppon M. Fekenham, and his disorder, as calling M. Deny Epicure at his owne table, and for openly calling him self almost in plaine termes heretike. He putteth M. Fekēham in remem∣braunce of certaine talke passed betwene them: as that a man may fast aswell with fleshe, as with fishe: of mortall and deadly synne, and other matters. As for the restraynte of his liberty, he sayth it came vppon his owne disorder: and that in cōplayning vpon him to the Councell, he brake no pro∣misse with him. These matters then being such as priuately passed betwene them, I beinge one that neither was then present, nor yet sithence fully vnderstanding any certainty of them, must leaue this to M. Fekenhams owne defence,

when the time shal serue. Sauing that so muche, I can say, that I haue bene credibly enformed, that M. Fekēham doth deny, as wel that he misused M. Deny, as such other things as M. Horne chargeth him withal, and is ready to stand to, and to iustifie al such things as are conteined in this his she∣dule if he may be suffred. And suerly among other things, to them that knewe his order and diet, either before his com∣ming to prison, either in the towre, when he had the liber∣ty of the same, wheras I am credibly enformed, he neuer made three meales, it can not seme credible and likely, that he shuld at Waltham as M. Horne saith, make three meales, aswel friday as other daies.

One thing I am sure of M. Horn, he toke no part of your fleshly breakfasts and suppers, that ye haue had in good store in your house vppon the fridaies and other fasting daies. Which example to be shewed in your house, being a man of such vocation and countenaunce, against the Lawes of the Church and the realme, how it may be allowed, I leaue it to the consideration of others. For I suppose neither your self, nor Maistres Madge, with al your other fleshly compa∣ny, are fallen into suche weaknes, feblenes and con∣sumption, nor are of so timerouse and scrupulouse a con∣science, that either ye neade, or will tarrie for a Licence: I wil not say to be sought at Rome, but nearer hand, at Lon∣don.

And what neade this prelate of any other Licence, that can so pretely licence him selfe to fast with flesh aswell as with fishe? For a man may (saieth he) fast aswell with fleshe as with fishe. Wel spoken, and like a good Turk or Iewe: For at a good Christians mouth I neuer heard that rule, nor euer reade it before. In the primitiue Church men fasted in great

numbers, both from fish and fleshe: but this prelate least the generation of his spirituall children, should be to much hin∣dered, by eating cold fish, hath found a new diuinity, wher∣by we may faste with a fatte pigge or capon vppon good fridaie, least for fayntnes we fal vnder the crosse as Christ did. I say, this is a new diuinity. For from the Apostles time hitherto Lent hath euer bene fasted, aswel in our realme, as in al Christendom beside. Wherof nowe almost xiij. hun∣dred yeares fithence, our most noble countreman and Em∣perour Constantinus, geueth vs a full godly testimony, as∣wel for our Ileland of Britany, as for Rome, all Italie, Aegypt,* 1.598 Fraunce, Lybia, all Grece, al the countries called Asiana and Pō∣tica Regio, Cilicia, and for al the Churches of the East, West, South, and North: And this lent fast was frō flesh at the lest, as it appeareth euidently,* 1.599 both by Epiphanius aboue xj. hū∣dred yers past, and by a Councel of Laodicea, holdē about that time. Yea they were counted plaine heretiks, that cō∣temned the Lente and other fastinge daies: As the Aerians, Iouinians, and such other.

And nowe haue we a subtile insoluble, that there is no synne, but that the same of it selfe is mortal synne, and yet there is no mortall synne, but that the same is veniall. For he saieth, he proued to M. Fekenham, that there is no synne so venial, as it could be remitted by any ceremonie, yea there is no sinne, but the same of it self is mortal, and yet veniall, to be purged by the merites of Christ onely: and that al synnes, were they neuer so mortal, were neuerthelesse venial, sauing al only the syn against the holy Ghost, which is irremissible. Suerly this is a notable cō∣clusion to lap vp your worthy boke withal. Wherin for al your subtelty, are as many errours and heresies, as are lines. And would God ye would haue shewed as withall, what

godly Father ye haue for your Authour, in these your ab∣surde and false propositionis. Well, well, as muche as ye crake, that ye proued this gere to M. Feckenham, I must tel you,* 1.600 ye haue not yet proued, nor euer shal proue yt as long as ye liue. And ye dare not for shame, shewe the authour of your doctrine: who is no better then the Archeheretyke Wiclef. Who sayeth there is no synne properly to be cal∣led mortal, but the lacke of finall repentance, which is the sinne against the holy Ghost. Or yf ye haue any better au∣thour, we woulde gladly see him: and would gladly at your good leasure better vnderstand, how ye could either rydde your selfe from many fowle errours, or from a fowle con∣tradiction, in these your so fewe lines.

For first where you say, that no sinne is so venial, as it coulde be remitted by any ceremony: yf you vnderstode what venial sinne were, a man of your vocatiō would be ashamed so to say. And therfore I wil first open your second errour vpon the which this former is grounded. Which is this.

There is (you say) no sinne, but the same of it selfe is mortal, and yet venial, to be purged by the merites of Christe onely. Is this your diuinitie M. Bishop? Nowe forsothe a worthy diuine you shewe your selfe, and more mete to be a parish clarke in Kingy strete in Winchester, then a bishop of that famous See. For how say you M. Horne? Is euery mortal sinne also venial?* 1.601 And is euery sinne of it selfe mortal? Let vs then see what is mortal sinne, and what is venial. Mortal sinne is cō∣mitted, whē we doe any thing against Gods law, or against the loue we owe to him, or to our neighbour for his sake, with an auersiō or turning away frō God him selfe.* 1.602 Which Acte forsaking the euerlasting goodnes, and cōuerting our selues to the vnlauful vse of his tēporal creatures, is a dead∣ly

synne, that is such as deserueth by the law and iustice of God, euerlasting death. Of such mortal synnes excluding from the kingdome of God, you haue in S. Paule diuerse enumerations, bothe to th•• Corinthians,* 1.603 and to the Gala∣thians: which howe they may be made venial you shal ne∣uer shewe: but howe they may be made no sinnes at al that is, howe they may be vtterly forgotten and forgeuen,* 1.604 yt is easy to shewe: forsothe by the merites of Christes passion, as a meritoribus cause: by the mercy and Iustice of God, as by a formal and efficient cause, our own repētaunce going before according to the sacrament of penaunce with al the partes thereof, as by a necessary disposition of the matter apte to receiue this effecte, which is Reconciliation with God after our falle.* 1.605 Veniall synne is a disordinat affection or passion disordering our dewe loue to God and our dew obedience to his lawe, either by frailty of light motiōs and incitations (against the which we fight not so strongly as we shoulde, neither watche so warely as we ought) or by natural infirmity of the olde corrupted Adam, or by excu∣sable ignorāce of the particular factes, in al which we for∣sake not God, nor our loue to him and to our neighbour, but are for the time rather letted and hindered, then auer∣ted or remoued from our loue and duty to God. This synne is called venial or pardonable, for that the Acte thereof ex∣cludeth vs not from the kingdome of heauen, neither ma∣keth vs deadly guilty in Gods sight. And the reason is, be∣cause such motions of frailty, and such light negligences (without the which this life is not lead) are but a smode∣ring heate of the olde fyre of originall sinne cleane quen∣ched in the water of baptim: Quenched I say, for any gylti∣nesse thereof to remayne, but not quenched vtterly for the

operation and working thereof. The olde Adam worketh still in vs, and rebelleth against the spirite (notwithstanding he was drowned in Baptisme) but the spirite of the newe man in Christ resisteth, and fighteth daily against him. In which fight and combat the best men are sometime veni∣ally ouercomed, though not deadly, as most men are.

This is the clere doctrine of S. Augustin, and of al the lear∣ned Fathers by him alleaged in his secōd Booke against Iu∣liā the Pelagiā: Of S. Ambrose, S. Cypriā, S. Chrysostome, S. Hierom, Gregorie Naziāzene S. Hilarie, S. Basil, S. Ireneus, with certain other, by him, as I saied, alleaged against Iuliā the Pelagiā. And to be short with you herein M. Horn, be∣hold one direct ād clere sentēce of S. Austin, cōformable to al those holy Fathers ād Doctours, in which he shortly and clerely cōfuteth your most ignorāt cōfusiō of venial sinne ād of mortal: saying that euery sinne of it self is mortal. For af∣ter he had alleged al the forenamed doctours, ād last of al in this place S. Ambrose, cōcerning the remnāts of original sin in vs, which by your doctrine ād Melāchthōs, is deadly and mortal sinne, thus he cōcludeth him self. Ecce quantā nos pu∣gnā etc. * 1.606 Behold what a greate fight or cōbat, this valiaūt souldiar of Christ, ād faithful doctor of his Church (he meneth S. Amb.) sheweth vs to haue with sinnes allready dead ād slayne: (he me∣neth original sinne in baptism) for howe is (that) sin dead seing that it worketh many things in vs, whē we striue against it? What many things are these, but fond and hurtful desires, which draw the consenters vnto them into destruction: which yet to suffer and not to yeld vnto, is a combat, a conflict and a battail? Nowe betwene whom is this battail▪ but betwene good and euill: not betwen nature and nature (as the Manichees imagined) but betwene nature and synne: synne, I saye, already dead, but yet to be buried, that is, whollly to be healed.

Howe then say we, this sinne is dead in baptisme (as also this mā sayth, S. Ambrose) and howe do we yet confesse, that it dwelleth in our membres, and worketh in vs many desires, we striuing still against it (as also this Ambrose confesseth) but bicause this sinne in respect of the gyltynesse thereof, wherein (before bap∣tisme) we were fast tyed, is dead, and yet beinge dead rebelleth, vntyl by perfect buryal it be quite healed. And yet this sinne is not nowe (after baptisme) in such sorte called sinne, as that it made vs guilty (before God) but bicause by the gyltinesse of A∣dam it was made (synne) and bicause also by rebelling it dra∣weth vs to sin, except the grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord do helpe vs, that this dead sinne do not so rebelle, that by ouer∣coming vs it waxe againe alyue, and reigne (in our mortal bo∣dy). In this battail fighting and toyling, as longe as this life is a tentation vpon the earthe,* 1.607 we are not therefore in sinne,* 1.608 be∣cause this which in suche sorte is called synne, worketh in our membres, contrarying the lawe of (our) minde, as longe as we consent not vnto it in the vnlawfull desires and motions of it. For as touching our selues, we should remaine, alwaies without sinne (vntill this euill were (vtterly) healed) if we did neuer consent to the euill. But in such thinges as by the rebellion of this euill, we are ouercomed in, though not deadly, but venially, yet ouercomed, in such thinges I say, we contract or gette that wherby we must daily say: Lorde forgeue vs our trespasses. As (for example) maried folke, when for pleaesure only they excede the measure necessary for generation. As also continent and chaste persons, when they stay in such thoughtes with some de∣lectation, not yet determining the wicked deede, * 1.609 or bearinge (the wicked dede) of him that doth determine it, but not a∣uerting so diligently as they ought the intention of their minde from suche thoughtes, nor yet riddinge them selues so soone

from the thoughtes (being ones fallē into them) as they ought. Thus farre S. Augustin. These two exāples he geueth of ve∣nial sinne. And for these veniall sinnes we muste say daily (saith he) Lord forgeue vs our Trespasses. Accordīg to this do∣ctrine he teacheth in an other place, wher he writeth thus. The sonnes of God as longe as they liue in this mortal life,* 1.610 they fight with their mortalite. And though it be truly saied of thē: As many as are lead with the Spirit of God, those are the sonnes of God, yet they are so stirred with the Spirit of God and doe so profit to Godward as the sonnes of God, that yet as the sonnes of mē,* 1.611 especially by reason of their corruptible bodie molesting thē, they falle back to thē selues ward, with certain humain motiōs, and therefore do sinne. There is a great difference, as we haue largely saied. For though euery Crime (by which terme he cal∣leth mortal sinne) be a sinne,* 1.612 yet euery sinne is not a Crime. As much to say, euery venial sinne is not mortall or deadly.

Therefore we say in dede, that the life of holie men, as long as they liue in this mortalite, maie be founde without Crime, or deadly sinne. But (venial) sinne if we saie we haue not, we de∣ceaue our selues (as the holy Apostle saieth) and Truthe is not in vs. Here againe S. Augustin maketh a clere differēce be∣twene the crime or deadly sinne, which maketh vs the son∣nes of wrath, ād betwene the venial sinne, with the which we continewe yet the sonnes of God: and the which holie mē in this life neuer lacke. But God forbidde that holy men shoulde neuer lacke deadly and mortal sinne: which vpon M. Hornes doctrine (that euerie synne of it selfe is mortall) must nedes folow. No. No M. Horne, your lewd spirit and the holy Spirit of the lerned fathers are farre wide a sonder.

This you learned of Melanchthon, and he of Luther, the very synke of all your filthie heresies. But howe lear∣nedly

and pithely this fonde and lewde doctrine of Me∣lanchthon, Luthers, and youres was confuted by Doctour Eckius, in the open disputation betwene him and Me∣lanchthon at Wormes, you may M. Horne (for you make no deinty, I thinke, to reade heresye bookes) see and reade to your greate cōfusion euen in the very workes of Melanchthon printed at Wittenberge.* 1.613 Anno. 1564.

Where also you shall finde a Notable place of S. Augu∣stine corrupted first by Luther, and then by Melanchthon, so clerely detected and pressed of Doctor Eckius, that Me∣lanchthon was fayne in that honourable Assembly openly to recante, and to say. Quod ad me attinet, agnosco male citatum esse. As for my owne part, I confesse it was wrōg∣fully alleaged. The place was this. Where S. Augustine wrote: That Concupiscence was taken away by baptisme, non vt non fit, sed vt non imputetur, not that yt shoulde be no more in man after baptism, but that after baptisme it should no more be imputed vnto vs, yf by deliberat consent we yelded not thereto: Luther ād Melāchton mad S. Augustin to say. That sinne was takē away by baptism, not that it cōtine∣wed not stil in mā, but that it should no more be imputed to mā. By which feate ād sleight, by turning Cōcupiscēce into sin, they proued both their Imputatiue righteousnes, as that mā was neuer iuste, good, and holy, but only was accepted for such, though he remained stil a sinner ād had sin alwaies in him, and also that the same sinne was in him a deadly and mortall sinne. Which is the thinge that M. Horne here af∣firmeth, auouching that euery sinne of yt selfe is mortal.

Which (to make an ende hereof shortly) is as much to say, as euery sicknesse infirmitie or disease is of it self death. For as the body liueth by the soule, so the soule liueth by

God. As the body dieth, when the soule is separated from it, so the soule dieth, when God is gone from it. Which matter S. Augustin most excellently handleth in his notable worke de Ciuitate Dei.* 1.614 As therefore not euery disordered affection of the body killeth it out of hande, but the body is longe and much vexed with deseases and infirmites before it dye, yea and as longe as the desease reacheth not to the harte or roote of vital humour where hence the life sprin∣geth, as longe as that principle of life is whole and sounde, the body liueth and dieth not: so not euery cōuersion of the soule to the creatures, bredeth a separation of the soule frō the Creatour: but the soule fighteth againste the fleshe, and though in that fight it take a blowe, yea and a wounde to now and thē, yet the sowle recouereth it selfe and yeldeth not wholy to the fleshe, or to any other creature, but clea∣ueth stil to God his Creatour, loueth him stil, kepeth his lawe, and so falleth not deadly, neyther synneth mortally, vntyll it geue ouer to vice, and forsaketh God. Which euil men doe, without any fight or combat at al. But good men either not at al, or very seldom and after great fight: and thē are they no more good men or the childrē of God, but are nowe become the children of wrathe, so to perish euerla∣stingly, except they repente. This is a greate and a clere di∣stinction betwene mortal sinne and venial synne.

Now where you adde, that though euery synne be of yt selfe mortal, yet it is also venial to be purged by the merites of Christ only, yf you take venial for pardonable or remissi∣ble, we graūte, euery synne be it neuer so mortall, is in such a sense venial the synne against the holy Ghoste, which is finall impenitēce, alonely excepted. But yf you take venial, as it is an opposite to mortal, as M. Fekenhā toke it, whē he

auouched that by a godly ceremony venial synnes may be remitted, and as you must take it, yf you wil cōtrary M. Fe∣kenhams assertion, then are you in an other foule errour. For as the venial synne is not mortal (as I haue proued) so neither is any mortal synne venial, as longe as it is mortall. This confounding of degrees in synne, to make all mortall, is a Stoical and Barbarous paradoxe, opening the gate to al dissolutenesse and licentiousnesse: not only cōtrary to truth and lerning, but cōtrary to good life and good maners. And it semeth to agree iumpe with Luthers paradoxe, wherein he taught and defended, That a good worke, be it neuer so wel done, is according to the mercy of God a venial sinne and accor∣ding to the Iudgemēt of God a mortal sinne.* 1.615 Which straunge paradoxe of that fonde fryer beinge lernedly and pithely confuted of our learned and holie countreman the bles∣sed Bishoppe of Rochester Doctour Fysher, I remitte the lerned Readers to that place: where also they shall fynde this distinction of mortall and veniall sinne, clerely prosecuted againste the wicked doctrine of Luther there, and against the peuishe assertion of M. Horne here.

Where you adde, by the merites of Christe onely, yf you meane as by the principal effect, and by the vertue wherof only all other workes of men are auaylable and meritori∣ous, I graūt you say wel. But yf you say mortal synne is pur∣ged by the merites of Christ only, excluding by the worde only, al repentance, contrition of harte, confession of the mouthe, and satisfaction of our owne partes to our ability, I note it for an other foule errour and wicked heresye of Luther your grandsir, whereby to extolle the merites of Christ, you doe ful peuishly exclude al worke of mā, which yet the Scriptures expressely require to concurre with the

merits of Christ, not as of thē selues simply auailable, but as by the merit of Christes passiō, auaylable: ād as the workes of the holy Ghost, geuē vnto vs by Charity poured into our harts, good ād meritorious. Remēbre M. Horn what Christ said to the Pharisees.* 1.616 Oportebat ista facere, & illa nō intermit∣tere.* 1.617 You ought to doe these thīgs, ād not to omit the other things. Put altogether M. Horne. Christes merites purchase heauē to mankind: It is most true. And yet it purchaseth not heauē to the Infidell, to the Iewe; to the heretike, or to the wicked Christiā.* 1.618 But ōly to such as haue faith that worketh by charity, which charity cōprehēdeth al maner of good works.

You affirme beside against M. Fekenham that no veniall sinne can be remitted by any ceremony. For a short answer to this point (bicause largely this matter is treated by M. Allen in his last booke of the power of priesthod &c.) heare what S. Augustin sayth in his Enchiridio, within few chapters af∣ter the wordes lastly recited,* 1.619 where he made a distinction betwene crimen and peccatum. Thus he saith. De quotidianis autem breuibus leuibúsque peccatis, sine quibus haec vita non ducitur, quotidiana oratio fidelium satisfacit. As cōcerning the daily, short, and light sinnes, without the which no man li∣ueth, the daily prayer of the faithefull doth satisfye. By the daily prayer he meaneth the Pater noster, as in the same chapter he expoundeth him self. Againe in the next chapter he teacheth, that by all kindes of almes dedes (vnder almes dedes comprehending al good workes) such venial sins are forgeuē: Th{us} he saith after a lōg enumeratiō of good works. Multa ita{que} genera sunt eleemosynarū, quae cū facim{us}, adiuuamur vt dimittātur nobis nostra peccata. There are therfore many kinds of almes dedes, which whē we doe, we are holpē to haue our sins forgeuē vnto vs. Nowe why are the saying of our daily prayer, ād the doīg of almes dedes, thought of this

lerned Father to redeme these smaller sinnes, but bicause as such sins are not cōmitted with a total auersiō frō God the creatour (for so were they mortal, not venial) but by a fraile cōuersiō to the creature, so again euery good motiō to God ward again, expressed by some such vertuous act,* 1.620 redemeth in the sight of God the former declinīg frō God. This Re∣uerēt motiō to Godward as it is expressed by S. Augustin here for exāples fake, in sayīg the Pater noster, ānd in doing of almes dedes, so by the Iudgmēt of the Church, which no true Christē man ought to mystrust, the same is also expres∣sed, in kneeling, in knockīg the brest, in kissing of holy reliks, or in any holy ceremony, don for the honour of God ād of his Saīts, which redoūdeth to hī, for whose sake they are ho¦nored. By this M. Horn you may shortly vnderstād, in what sense the Catholiks affirme, that by a holy ceremony veni∣al sins may be takē away. And thus the Crosse that came frō the Iesuites to M. Feken. came in a good howre. As by the occasiō wherof, you haue discouered vnto you some of your lurking heresies, ād the Catholike faith is somwhat opened (more perhaps thē you wold it wer) to al such as haue grace to harkē thervnto. Your farder assertiō that al mortal syns are also venial, saue ōly the syn agaīst the holy Ghost, is the new scoured heresy of Wiclef, as is before touched. But see you not, that when ye saye there is no mortall sinne, but the sinne against the holy Ghoste, howe contrary you are to your selfe, saying that al sinnes are mortal, and yet againe affirming there is no mortal sinne at all, but one? Whereby ye go very nere to the Pelagians heresie, taking away ori∣ginall sinne. For if there be no mortall sinne, but the sinne against the holy Ghoste (that is, lacke of repentance, as Wicleff declareth) then did not Adam cōmitte any mortal

sinne: for he died penitently.* 1.621 And then, if he cōmitted no deadly sinne in the transgression of Gods cōmaundement: he could not transfunde originall sinne that should kill his posteritie, which was a braunche of the Pelagian heresie.

Neither wil it helpe you to say, that there is no synne, sa∣uing lacke of repentaunce, but is purged by the merits of Christ. For the question is not, when we speake of veniall and mortall synne, howe it may be taken away or forge∣uen, but what payne and penalty eche of his owne nature deserueth. Venial synne deserueth no other payne, then tē∣poral paine. Mortal sinne deserueth euerlasting paine.

But here is no place, exactly to discusse these matters. And I haue saied this onely, to shew, what a sort of errours and heresies ye wrap vp with the closing of your boke: and that if it were but for theis only, M. Fekenham might haue called you, and that iustly in plaine termes (without any almost) an heretike. As for M. Iewel, if M. Fekenham said (as ye say he sayd) that he should neuer be able to answere M. Doctour Hardings boke, he said nothing but truth: which doth well appere to any indifferent Reader, by the labours of those that haue confuted already the stronger, the grea∣ter, and the more important partes of his Reply: and haue alredy discried about one thowsand of manifest errours and lies in him. To what number then, thinke you, will they muster, if a whole confutation of all the remnant should come forthe?

Here would nowe somewhat be saied to your answere, concerning the rumour of M. Fekenhams subscription and recantation: and I suppose if I knewe the whole circūstance of the matter, I might easely confute al your answere ther∣in. And yet as straunge as ye make your self to that rumour

or any knowledge therof, a man may wel gather, and go no further then your owne booke, that your selfe ministred great occasion of suche rumours: as telling him so often in your answere, of the feare of reuolte that his frendes had in him: with the whiche also you ende your answere.* 1.622 In tel∣ling of him, that he semed to be resolued,* 1.623 and in a maner fully satisfied at your hands. And that ye made relation thereof to certaine honourable persons: and finally,* 1.624 that your selfe do plainely here confesse, that ye sayed, that M. Feken∣ham had chaunged his Religion nine tymes, yea nintene ty∣mes. But these matters I will leaue: as also your vnkinde and vngentle dealing with him: and your complaintes againste him, contrary to your promisse: and will nowe onely put your Reader in remembramce, of the Iesuites, whome ye call monkishe Iebusites, and pray him withall well to consider the order and trade of theire lyues, and doctrine, yea the gloriouse issewe that hath and daylie doth followe thereof, comparing them with the doinges and doctrine of you and your fellowes. And then I doubte not, but he will thinke, that this is nothing but vile and wicked rayling in you, to call them Iebusites,* 1.625 and that in comparison to you, and your ghospelling bretherne, they may be counted lyuing angells. Yf the profession of a reli∣giouse and a monastical life deserue in them this contume∣ly and reproche at your handes, then may ye call S. Basil, S. Hierome, S. Augustine, S. Chrysostome, S. Gregory our Apostle, with Ruffinus, Epiphanius, Paulinus, Cassianus, and a nūber of other auncient and godly Fathers Iebusi∣tes to. And see ye not M. Horne, howe this your blasphe∣mie doth not redounde to those Fathers onely, but euen to our Sauiour Christe Iesus him selfe, whose name they

beare,* 1.626 and whose steppes they most diligently and most ernestly do followe, aswel by a vertuouse austere lyfe, as by paineful preaching? Which their trauaile our Sauiour Iesus hath so prospered and blessed, that your newe Apostle Lu∣ther hath not brought so many Christian soules by his poy∣soned heresie to destruction and damnation in Europa: as they haue brought Panyms, Mores, ād Turks many a thou∣sand mile from Europa, from Paganisme to the catholike faith, from the which we haue departed and runne awaye hedlong.

* 1.627Neither can I either to much thinke vpon, or to much, prayse the wonderfull prouidence of God in this behalfe. For euen as a thousand yeares sithence, the Christian Em∣pire, and faith beganne to decay in Asia and Afrike by cur∣sed Mahomete, caused the decayed faith, againe to springe and take roote in the west parte of the worlde: as namely among vs in England, and afterward among the Germans, the Bulgarians, the Polonians, the Hungarians, the Danes, the Prussians,* 1.628 the Lituanians, and among a number of other nations, as I haue in the Fortresse annexed to the history of Bede ••eclared: so nowe in the latter daies the Empire of Constantinople becomming Turkishe, and in our daies a great part of our owne Europa, being (the more pity) caried away with errours and heresies, God hath of his wonderful mercy and goodnes, in mans remembrance, opened and re∣ueled to vs, as it were a newe world, of the which ne••ther by writing nor otherwise, we euer heard any thing before. And which is a cause of deper and more ample thankes, he hath by his prouidence so ordeyned, that the sayd coūtries beside in Asia and Aph••ica are become of plaine and open Idolatours, of Mores and Sarazens, very good Christians: ād

that cheifly by the great helpe and trauaile, of these blessed and vertuouse Iesuites, whom you so lewdly cal Iebusites. By whom also God hath shewed such wonders and mira∣cles, as the hearing or reading of them, were to any good Christian heart of al things most comfortable. And suerly if a man would deaply and throughly weigh and consider the greatnes of this benefite, he might wel doubt, whether af∣ter the creation of the world and the redemption of man∣kind by the passion of Christ, there be any one benefitte or worke of God, more wonderful then this: or whether there be anie one state or vocation in Christes Church, after the Apostles, more worthie laude and prayse then these, that you so vilanously call Iebusites. So filthely your blasphe∣mous mouth can raile against Gods truth. No no, M. Horn, these be no Iebusites. The Iebusites be the cursed sede of Cham, cursed of Noe their father for dishonouring of him.* 1.629 Ye, ye are the Iebusites, that the celestiall father with his owne mouth, hath cursed for making his Spowse your mo∣ther an idolatrouse strompet and harlet. Whome the bles∣sed Iesuites, as good graciouse children, honour and reue∣rence Who worthely beare that name also, theire workes being correspondent to theire name, which doth signifie a Sauiour. For they, by their preaching haue saued, and brought from damnation many an hundred thousand of soules, to the euerlasting blisse of heauen, the which God of his goodnes and mercie graunt vnto vs. Amen.

FINIS.

Laus Deo, qui dedit velle, & dedit perficere.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The secōd point.
• * 1.2

  The .511. vntruthe. M. Feken∣ham ma∣keth not this diffe∣rence, but a farre di∣uerse, as shal ap∣peare.
• * 1.3

  The .512. vntruthe. It varieth very muche.
• * 1.4

  M. Horne novv be∣gīneth to play the defendāts parte.
• * 1.5

  Cōstātine the firste Empe∣rour that did ioign his sword to the mainte∣nance of God his vvoord. Act. 2.
• * 1.6

  The .513. Vntruth. Not one sentence hath ben broughte to proue that.
• * 1.7

  The .514. Vntruth. M. Fekā∣hā auou∣cheth it not for suche, as it shal ap∣peare.
• * 1.8

  A Pro∣testāticall slaunder.
• * 1.9

  Li. 6. c. 34
• * 1.10

  The 515. vntruth. In dissem¦bling vvhat de¦des and vvorkes those vvere. Li. 1. de vit. Const.
• * 1.11

  Lib. 2.
• * 1.12

  The 516: vntruth. Polidor{us} text vily mangled, as shall appeare.
• * 1.13

  The 517. vntruth. of al other most no∣torious, and cōtra¦ry to al hi¦storians vvhatso∣euer.
• * 1.14

  The .518. vntruth. The epi∣stle folo∣wing re∣porteth no suche thinge.
• * 1.15

  The .519. vntruth. No such thinge in the pop••s pretensed letters.
• * 1.16

  The .520. vntruth. Kinge Iune, ne∣uer drew out suche lavves.
• * 1.17

  Three causes that stay•• M. Fekē¦ham, frō•• taking the Othe.
• * 1.18

  The first. Attendite vobis & vniuerso gregi, in quo posuit vos spiri∣tus sanctus episcopos regere ec∣clesiā Dei, quam ac∣quisiuit sanguine su••.
• * 1.19

  M. Horn i∣magineth that to be M. Feken∣hams prin¦cipal argu∣ment that is not.
• * 1.20

  Christes Image sent to Abgarus.
• * 1.21

  Niceph. l,. 17. c. 16
• * 1.22

  Vide Me∣taphrast.
• * 1.23

  Of the first Chri¦stiā Em∣perour. Philip.
• * 1.24

  Hovve corruptly ād vvret∣chedly M. Horne handleth the storie of them∣perour Philip.
• * 1.25

  Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 25. histor. ec∣clesiast. Abbas Vr∣spergen.
• * 1.26

  The cause that mo∣ued M. Horne so to handle this story
• * 1.27

  Beda li. 1. eccles. hist, ca. 4. mi∣sit ad eum Lucius Britānorū Rex episto¦lam obse∣crans, vt per eius mandatū efficeretur christian{us}. Idē pror∣sus Dama¦sus in Pon¦tificali.
• * 1.28

  Galf. Mo¦numetēs. Epistolas Eleuthe∣••io Papae direxi••, pe¦tens vt ab eo christia¦nitatem reciperet. Li. 1. ca. 4. Galfr. Mo¦num. &c. Asse••ius Meueuēs. in annali∣bus Angl.
• * 1.29

  Cēt. 1. de script. Brit. Eluanū & Meduinū ad Eleutheriū Ro. Pontificē misit, cum quibus ille suos lega∣tos remisit Fugatiū ac Damianū, qui no∣uis ritib. ac selēni e∣piscoporū dispositione eā formarēt Ecclesiā. Graftō in the abrid¦gemēt of the chro∣nicles of England. Naucler. gener. 6. Sabel. enead. 7. li. 5. Io. Laz. in epit. hist. vniuers. Ado in Chro. Tom. 1. Concil: pag. 191. edit. vlt.
• * 1.30

  Polidorus lib. 2. Iste anno salutis hu∣manae 182. regni vero 13. verae religionis a∣more ductus cū Eleu¦therio Romano Pon∣tifice egit, vt se ac suos ad Christianorū numerū coelesti sonte perfusos adiungeret. Missi sunt eò Fuga∣tius ac Damianus viri pietate singulari hij regē cum tota do∣mo populo{que} vniuer∣so baptisarunt, subla∣toque &c.
• * 1.31

  See good reader the sincere and ho∣nest dealing of M. Horne.

  A consideration of the cause that mo∣ued Lucius to send to Rome.
• * 1.32

  Niceph. li. 4. c. 19.
• * 1.33

  Idem li. 3. cap. 36.
• * 1.34

  Euseb. li. 5. cap. 16.
• * 1.35

  Cōcernīg Pope Eleuthe∣rius let∣ters to king Lucius.
• * 1.36

  Ievvell. pag 86. in his reply.
• * 1.37

  Naucle∣rus putat hunc fuisse Edeluul∣phum Al∣phredi pa∣trem. Ge∣nerat. 29. pag. 61. Alibi vo∣cat eum Adulphū. Gener. 41, pag. 280 Henricus Hunting Asserius Meneuēs. Pol. li. 4. Pag. 89.
• * 1.38

  Lib. 2. Dedit le∣ges et Ro∣mana quae dam insti∣tuta vtē∣dae intro∣duxit.

  Vide Cor∣nel. tacit. in vitae Agricolae.
• * 1.39

  How and vvherein King Lu∣cius vvas Gods Vi∣care.
• * 1.40

  In his Replie fol. 19. This Epi∣stle, be it a true or a false epi¦stle, ney∣ther ma∣keth for M. Horne nor for M. Ievvel
• * 1.41

  Concer∣ning M. Fekenhās sayīg that Cōstātin the great vvas the first Chri∣stiā king.
• * 1.42

  Niceph. li. 2. cap. 7. Mihi verò oppidum quoddam est modicū quidē, nec admodum celebre: v∣tri{que} tamē nostrū per cōmodum. Tobiae. 4. Sicut bea∣to Iob, in∣sultabant reges.
• * 1.43

  Solus aeuo vniuerso regenitus imperator at{que} sacris initiatus est in Chri¦sto.

  Lib. 4. De vita Cōst. ex transl. Ioan. Por∣tesij. Lact. de falsa re¦lig. cap. 1. Amb. de obitu Theo¦dosij.

  Aug. ep. 50
• * 1.44

  The .521. vntruthe. It is true in matter, as hath bene pro∣ued.
• * 1.45

  The 522. vntruthe, mere slaū∣derous. Epist. 50.
• * 1.46

  Psalm. 2.
• * 1.47

  Psalm. 71.
• * 1.48

  M. Fekē∣hams ar∣gument falsely cō¦pared vvith the Donatists argumēt.
• * 1.49

  In his first Reproufe. Fol. 74. b. & 75 a Marke good rea∣der that to reason from the order of the Apo∣stles to our time, is novve vvith M. Horne an ill fauo∣red forme of arguīg.
• * 1.50

  M. Feken∣hams say∣ing cōfir∣med by M. Horns ovvn al∣legation.
• * 1.51

  Vt descri∣beretur v∣niuersus orbis. Luc. 1. Murmura¦uit omnis congrega∣tio filiorū Israel. Exo. c. 16.
• * 1.52

  The .523. vntruthe. It is a good argu¦ment, no Sophisti∣catiō at al.
• * 1.53

  Heb. 7.
• * 1.54

  The .524. vntruthe. A plaine heresy.
• * 1.55

  The .525. vntruthe. It is a Catholike and and vniuersall opinion of the Churche.
• * 1.56

  The .526. vntruth. Notorious, as it shal appere out of S. Augustine.
• * 1.57

  The .527. vntruthe. The povver of the svvorde ruled the Ievves Synogoge, not Christes Chur∣che.
• * 1.58

  The .528. vntruthe. Not that only, but also to correcte, to rebuke, and to re∣fourme.
• * 1.59

  The .529. vntruthe. He dealt plainely, and translated tru∣ly.
• * 1.60

  The 530. vntruthe. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Apostles vvorde, signifieth as properly to rule as to feede.
• * 1.61

  Cap. 4. Act. 24.
• * 1.62

  Ioan. 21.
• * 1.63

  Math. 24.
• * 1.64

  The .531. vntruthe. For he gaue in o∣ther places other povver and Autho¦ryte: Namely in his laste Supper, Luc. 22. and also af∣ter his Ascension by the holy Ghost instructing them and their successors for euer. Ioan. 14. &. 16.

  Math. 28.
• * 1.65

  The .532. vntruthe. It consisteth not in these .3. points only, but in many moe: as hath bene she∣vved.
• * 1.66

  The .533. vntruthe. For S. Paule beside, excōmunicated of∣fenders, as. 1. Tim. 1. ordeined bishops, as Tite and Timo∣thee, made orders in the Churche. 1. Cor. 21. & caet.
• * 1.67

  A•• though humilitie and gouer¦nement could not stande to∣gether, ād agre both in one per¦son.
• * 1.68

  The .534. vntruthe. for by ••ou they may take al v∣pō them, ergo this also.
• * 1.69

  The .535. vntruthe, mere slaū∣derous.
• * 1.70

  Concer∣ning this vvorde, Priest.
• * 1.71

  Exod. 28. Ioelis. 1. Vlulate Mi¦nistri alta∣ris.

  Hiere. 33. Sacerdotes Ministri mei.
• * 1.72

  Heb. 10.
• * 1.73

  Act. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.74

  Augu lib. 20. de Ci∣uitate Dei cap. 10.
• * 1.75

  Hebr. 7.
• * 1.76

  Oecume∣nius sen∣tence of the sayd sacrifice. Sacerdos in aeternū. Psal. 19. Tu es sa∣cerdos in aeternū se∣cundū or∣dinē Mel∣chisedech. Consider M. Ie∣vvels an∣svvere to the sayed Oecume∣nius.
• * 1.77

  M. Ie∣vvels hy∣pocritall dissimu∣lation.
• * 1.78

  In his re∣ply fo 75.
• * 1.79

  Ievvell fol. 503. Vid. 2. Cōc. Nicenum, actio. 4. Non. 1. vt in Ievvell. pag. 517.
• * 1.80

  Fol. 580. Nos Chri¦stiani pro∣pemodum quid sit ara, & quid sit vi¦ctima, nes∣cimus.
• * 1.81

  Nicenae. 2. synodi Act. 4. fol. 517. col. 2. Pudore suf∣sundantur Iudaei qui proprios reges et alienos adorātes, nos Christianos tāquam idololatras irrident. Nos aūt Christiani, oībus in ciuitatib. & regionib. indies et in horas singulas cōtra idola stamus armati cōtra idola psallim{us}, cōtra idola & preces fundim{us}. Et qua tā∣dem fronte Iudaei nos vocant idololatras? Vbi nunc sunt quae olim ab istis oblatae sunt idolis boū, ouiū & filiorum quo{que} vi¦ctimae? vbi sacrificio∣rū fumi? vbi arae et perfusiōes sanguinū? Nos verò Christiani propemodum quid sit ara, quid sit victima ignoramus.
• * 1.82

  M. Horn. denying the sacrifice, ma∣keth a playne vvay for Antichriste.

  Daniel. 12.

  Quum ablatum fue∣rit iuge sacrificium. Aug. de ciuit. Dei. lib. 20. ca. 23. &. 29. Prosper de diuinis pro niss. & praedict. dimid. temp. cap. 13. Hier. in dict. cap. 12. Primas. in apoc. li. 3. cap. 11. Greg. l 32. in Iob. 14. An an∣svvere to M. Horne for M. Fe∣kēhās trā∣slating of the vvord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pascere vel regere.
• * 1.83

  2. Reg. 5. T•• pasces ••opulum meū Isra∣el: & iu¦eris dux super Israe¦el. Cui praecept vt pasceret populum meū ca. 7. Psalm. 77 pauit eos in innocē∣tia cordis sui.
• * 1.84

  So dothe also the Englishe trāslation of the nevv te∣stament p••īted at zuric•• ••n .1550. In his Replie. pag. 239.
• * 1.85

  The she∣pherdes office re∣sembleth most pro∣perly the Bishopes Office.
• * 1.86

  Genes. 31.
• * 1.87

  Chryso∣stoms sai¦yngs tou¦ching the spirituall gouerne∣ment.
• * 1.88

  Lib. 3. de dignitate Sac••rdotij
• * 1.89

  Ibidē. li. 6.
• * 1.90

  Porrò illū ipsū opor∣tet tantò oībs rebus illis p̄stare {pro} quib. in∣tercedit, quātò par¦ē vt subdi∣tos praefe∣ctus excellat. Cū aūt ille & spiritum San∣ctū inuocauerit, sa∣crificiūque illud hor∣rore ac reuerētia ple¦nissimū perfecerit, cōmuni omniū ma∣nibus assidue pertra∣ctato, quaero ex te. & cat.
• * 1.91

  Locus al∣tari vici∣nus in illi∣us honorē, q̲ imola∣tur ange∣lorū cho∣ris plenus est. Id quod cre∣dere abū∣de licet vel ex tanto illo sacri∣ficio quod tū peragi∣tur.
• * 1.92

  Iliad. ••.
• * 1.93

  The Princes suprema∣cy ou••r∣throwen by that that M. Horne him selfe graūteth.
• * 1.94

  De corre∣ptione & gratia. c. 3
• * 1.95

  De fide & operibus Cap. 2.

  Cùm in Ec¦clesiae disci¦plina visi∣bilis fuerat gladius cessaturus
• * 1.96

  De correp. & gratia Cap. 15.
• * 1.97

  Con••ra ••d¦uersur. legis & propheta∣rum. lib. 1. Cap. 17.
• * 1.98

  Luc. 12.
• * 1.99

  Math. 10. c. 28
• * 1.100

  Augustin. vt suprà.
• * 1.101

  De fide & operibus Cap. 2.
• * 1.102

  Act. 20. De ciuit. Dei li. 20. cap. 10.
• * 1.103

  See the force of truthe.
• * 1.104

  Heb. 13.
• * 1.105

  The .536. vntruth As before in the 531, 532. and 533. vn∣truthes.
• * 1.106

  The 537. vntruth. Your as∣sertion is thereby vtterly īproued and ouer∣throwen, for then the prīce is not su∣preame gouernor in all causes.
• * 1.107

  M. Feckē∣hams .2. reason. Hebre. 13.
• * 1.108

  In Comm. Ibidem.
• * 1.109

  1. Reg. 2.
• * 1.110

  Vide Dio∣nysium. 1. reg. 2.
• * 1.111

  Augustin. epist. 50.
• * 1.112

  1. Cor. 4. &. 5.
• * 1.113

  Epiphan. haeres. 42. li. 1. tom. 3
• * 1.114

  Augustin. de verbis Dom. sec. Ioā. serm. 34.

  Ezech. 34.
• * 1.115

  In lib. de pastoribus Cap. 10.11. & 13.
• * 1.116

  1. Cor. 14.
• * 1.117

  Gen. 3.
• * 1.118

  The .538. vntruthe. M Feckenham rea∣soneth not so. But thus. Therefore vvomen can not take vppon them the Supreame go∣uernement in all causes &c.
• * 1.119

  The .539. vntruthe, The argument is nothing like.
• * 1.120

  The .540 vntruthe. This argument is made vvith good and greate consi∣deration, as shall appeare.
• * 1.121

  M. Feckē∣hams 3. reason. 1. Cor. 14.
• * 1.122

  The .541. vntruth. It contei∣neth an argumēt, that M Horne shal neuer assoyle.
• * 1.123

  The 542. vntruth. Slaunde∣rous and iniurious
• * 1.124

  The .543. vntruth. For they, are 2. di∣uers arti∣cles, not one.

  Clemēs in compend. de fide.
• * 1.125

  The .544. vntruth. The cōmō opiniō of lerned mē rekoneth more thē 12. Arti∣cles.
• * 1.126

  The .545. vntruth. As before
• * 1.127

  The .546. vntruth. They are plaine cō∣tradicto∣ry one to an other, as shal ap¦peare.
• * 1.128

  The .547. vntruth. ioyned vvith im¦piety. The catholike Churche, that you by othe renoūce, is the Church of Christe, not of antichrist
• * 1.129

  The defi∣nition of the catho¦lique Churche* vnperfect as shall appeare.
• * 1.130

  The .548. vntruth. You haue no agre••¦ment, consent, or vnite of doctrine amōge your selues.
• * 1.131

  The .549. vntruth mere slanderous.
• * 1.132

  The 550. vntruth. M. Fekēhā saied not so of the Realme.
• * 1.133

  The 551. vntruth. It is right true that in effect you do so, as it shall appeare.
• * 1.134

  The .552. vntruth. For M. Fekenham saied not, that it is so, but that by Othe you make it so, vvhich is true, as it shal be proued.
• * 1.135

  The .553. vntruth. Notorious. The Othe speaketh of Euery foraine Pre∣late, not of a foraine prelat. You are novv ashamed your selfe of the Othe, M. Horne,
• * 1.136

  The 3. chief pointe.
• * 1.137

  In hoc cō∣muniter cōcordant Theologi & cano∣nistae.

  Gull. Lin∣vvood in cōstit. pro∣uinc. de summae trinit ca. 1. §. item alij.

  D. Thom. 2.2. q. 1. Arti 8. Host. & Io. And. in rub. de sum. tri∣nitate. Ruffinus ī symbolo.
• * 1.138

  M. Horne depra∣ueth M. Fekenhās argumēt.
• * 1.139

  The othe cōtrarye to an Ar∣ticle of our crede
• * 1.140

  An other contradi∣ction be∣tvvē the Othe, and an article of our Creede.
• * 1.141

  VVat it is to re∣noūce the authorite of euery forrayn prelate.
• * 1.142

  Confes. lib. 3. Cap. 8.
• * 1.143

  Epist. 118. ad Ianua.
• * 1.144

  Beda. lib. 1. cap. 17.
• * 1.145

  Bed. lib. 2. cap. 4. Idem lib. eodem ca. 19.
• * 1.146

  Epist. 48. ad Vincen∣tium.

  Cōt. Dona. post colla∣tionē. ca. 4
• * 1.147

  Lib. de v∣nitat. Ec∣clesiae. c. 4.
• * 1.148

  Act. 4. pag. 304. &. 306. To. 2. Concil.
• * 1.149

  M Feken∣hā clered.
• * 1.150

  A foule shift vsed by M. Horne.
• * 1.151

  M. Horns definitiō of the Churche. M. Horns Church cōpared to the schisma∣tical tem∣ple of Sa∣maria.

  Iosephus de bello In daico li. 7. ca. 30. & de Antiq. lib. 11. ca. vltimo. Ioan. 4. Deut. 12. &. 2. pa∣ral. 7. Iosephus antiq l. 11. cap. vlt.
• * 1.152

  Lib. 12. ca. 1. Ant.
• * 1.153

  Idē lib. 13. ca. 6. Ant.
• * 1.154

  Nevves out of Flaūdre•• for M. Horn and his bre∣thern.
• * 1.155

  Vide Fran¦ciscū Phi∣lippū, & Surium.
• * 1.156

  Galat. 1.
• * 1.157

  In Cōfut. Ministro∣rum Ant∣vverp. fol. 92. &. 93,
• * 1.158

  Vide Tile∣tani prae∣sat. ad Se∣natū Ant∣vverp.
• * 1.159

  1. Cor. 14.
• * 1.160

  The .554. vntruth. It is not lauful for any Prīce to take it.
• * 1.161

  The .555. vntruth. Horible and Pro∣testante lyke.
• * 1.162

  The .556. vntruth. Extreme slaunde∣rous, as al the world knoweth yea M. Horne him self,
• * 1.163

  The .557. vntruth. The com¦panie of catholy∣kes is no cōspiracy.
• * 1.164

  modestia vestra (M Horne) nota sit omnibus hominibus
• * 1.165

  The Turke is muche bovvnde to M. Horn ād, to his M. Luther and other his fel∣lovves. Art. 34. Vide Ro∣fens.

  Vide dubi∣tantium Lindain pag. 322. ex Mālio. ••om. 3 in loc. Com. pag. 195.
• * 1.166

  Vide Cri∣spinum in historia pseudo∣martyrū lib. 5. in Claudio Monerio.
• * 1.167

  The .558. Vntruth. Shamful. For they are your very own as it shall appeare.
• * 1.168

  The .559. Vntruth. your in∣terpreta∣tiō agre∣eth vvith your re∣solutiōs, the inter∣pretation exceptīg certaine iurisdicti∣on in cau¦ses Eccle∣siasticall from the Prince, vvhereof doth fol∣low, that (as the re∣solutions reporte) the Othe must not be taken, as it lieth Verbatim.
• * 1.169

  So al ge∣neral coū¦celles are excluded.
• * 1.170

  VVhy thē do ye exclude out of the Oth pre∣chīg. Mi∣nistrīg of sacramēts bindīg, ād losing. etc
• * 1.171

  The .560. vntruth. Not against him selfe. For first you saied so: but in your resolutiōs, and interpreta∣tion of the Othe you saie the cōtrary. And so in both places you are truly charged.
• * 1.172

  The, 561. vntruth. M. Fekē∣ham de∣nieth it not, in any his vvordes aboue re∣hersed.
• * 1.173

  The .562. vntruth, M. Fekē∣hā neuer yelded to any your proofes, reasons, or Au∣••horites.
• * 1.174

  Fol. 96. &. 97.
• * 1.175

  Fol. 107. &. 108.
• * 1.176

  Fol. 105.107.
• * 1.177

  A contra∣diction ir∣recōcilea∣ble in M. Horne.
• * 1.178

  Note.
• * 1.179

  Act. 20. Ioan. 20. Math. 16. Act. 8.
• * 1.180

  Heb. 13. Ezech.
• * 1.181

  Ioan. An∣toni{us} Del∣ph. lib. 2.
• * 1.182

  The .563. vntruthe. Preachinge and Ministration of S••craments▪ per∣tayne not to the secrete Courte of Conscience.
• * 1.183

  The .564. vntruthe. Neither preaching of the Ghospell, nor ministration of the Sacrament•• is referred to Iu∣risdiction not co∣hibitiue, by his Au∣thor alleaged.
• * 1.184

  The .565. vntruthe. For there is no suche diuision of the Cohibityue Iu∣risdiction.
• * 1.185

  The .566. vntruthe. For excommuni∣cation properly belongeth to bis∣shops.
• * 1.186

  The .567. vntruthe. Quintinus speaketh there of temporall Iurisdiction, not of Ecclesiasticall.
• * 1.187

  The .568 vntruthe. Antonius falsified. He speaketh not of this Iurisdiction, that is, of that vvhich cometh from the prince onely.
• * 1.188

  The .569. vntruthe. A great deale left out in the midle▪ plainly confutinge M. Horns purpose,
• * 1.189

  The .570. vntruthe. Your own Author, Antonius calleth this Opi∣nion Impiū errorē: a vvicked errour.
• * 1.190

  An an∣svvere to Io. Anto. Delphin{us}. Io. Antho∣nius Del∣de potesta. Eccles. Ve∣net. 1552. in. 8.
• * 1.191

  Tvvo povvers in the Churche: the firste of order or of the keyes: the second of iurisdi∣ction.
• * 1.192

  Fol. 105. a.
• * 1.193

  Lib. 2. pa. 76.
• * 1.194

  Lib. 2. pa. 36. b. & 37. a.
• * 1.195

  Io. Anth. Delph. lib. 2. pag. 76. b. Quamuis praelati su∣perioris voluntate quis parochiali sacer¦doti subijciatur, ta∣mē nisi ipse vltro sub¦ijciat seipsū: nūquam poterit absolui à pec∣catis. In secretissimo enīforo cōsciētiae ne∣mo absoluitur inuit{us}.
• * 1.196

  M. Horne in daūger of a pre∣munire.
• * 1.197

  M. Horns doctrine maketh frustrate al the ex∣cōmuni∣cations made in England theis .8. yeares.
• * 1.198

  An other irrecōci∣liable cō∣tradictiō in M. Horne.
• * 1.199

  Fol. 3. co. 2.
• * 1.200

  1. Cor. 15.
• * 1.201

  1. Cor. 4.
• * 1.202

  1. Tim. 1. 1. Cor. 6.
• * 1.203

  Actorū. 5. Nicephor. lib. 13. cap. 34.

  Idē lib. 12. Cap. 41.
• * 1.204

  See hovv M Horne playeth the Cacu•• to take a∣vvay the authority of excom∣munica∣tion from the Prīce.
• * 1.205

  Idē lib. 2. pag. 84. Determinata in cō∣cilio confirmare, ex∣cōmunicare, excom∣municatos, cū vt de∣cet resipiscunt eccle∣siae reconciliare, casus reseruare, reseruatos casus relaxare, dare indulgentias, penas quae pro peccatis in∣fliguntur, cōmutare.
• * 1.206

  Idem.

  Quamuis potestas Ecclesiasticae spiri∣tualisque iurisdi∣ctionis conueniat praebeaturque non sacerdotibus: nō ta∣men puris Laicis ne∣que religiosis corona clericali carentibus.

  Pag. 85.
• * 1.207

  The .571. vntruthe. M. Fekē∣hams ob∣iection is of the first kind, not of the secōd kīd.
• * 1.208

  The .572. vntruthe. Sclaunderous. M. Fekenhā reported the effecte of the Othe truely.
• * 1.209

  The .573. vntruthe. For that is moste true, as it shal ap∣peare.
• * 1.210

  The .574. vntruth. The expresse wor∣des of the Statute doe geue to the prince, povver to Authorise men to vse all maner of iu∣risdictions, as it is here reported, abso∣lutely. Ergo it ge∣ueth to the Prince the iurisdictiōs also
• * 1.211

  Marke: If this iu∣risdiction be vnited to the croun which the Prince in al ma¦ner doth assigne, name, ād authorise other to execute, why saied you be∣fore, that the Sta∣tute gaue not to the prince all maner of Iurisdictions?
• * 1.212

  The .575. vntruthe. It is no sophistica∣tiō at al: you proue no such thing.
• * 1.213

  The .576. vntruth. For they are not re∣strained in any part of the Acte.
• * 1.214

  The .577. vntruthe. This limitatiō vvēt before, it is not ad∣ded after those ge∣neral vvordes here noted. See the Acte it selfe. Againe it is in effecte no limita∣tion at all, as shall appeare.
• * 1.215

  The .578. vntruthe. These words make no limitation of ec∣clesiastical iurisdi∣ction authorised by the prince, neither doe appertayne therevnto.
• * 1.216

  The .579. vntruthe. This is a false addi∣tion not expressed in the Acte, but ra∣ther denyed by the generality thereof.
• * 1.217

  The .580. vntruthe. To say so, is imp••us error. A vvicked er∣rour, by Antonius Delphinus M. Hor∣nes Authour.
• * 1.218

  The .581. vntruthe. Sclaunderous. The vvords of the Acte vvere by M. Fekē∣ham plainely and truely sette forth.
• * 1.219

  The .582. vntruth. Ioyned vvith an heresie, as shall ap∣peare.
• * 1.220

  Such an euel cōse∣quēt you haue vsed throughout your booke, of certaine dealings cōcluding suprē gouernment in al causes.
• * 1.221

  The .583. Vntruthe. M Fekenham ar∣gueth not so.
• * 1.222

  Thē S. Bernardis a Papist who saith so Epist. 238. Solus ipse Rom. Pont. plenitu∣dinē habet potestatis.
• * 1.223

  The .584. Vntruthe. For M. Fek. therby cōcludeth that by such cōmissiō beīg geuē to bi¦shops im∣mediatly frō God in som spiri∣tuall cau∣ses, the Prīces au∣thorising for al ma∣ner of spi∣ritual causes to be vsed and exercised, is vvrongfully geuen by the Acte.
• * 1.224

  The 585. vntruth, ioyned vvith an heresy.
• * 1.225

  Here M. Horne cō¦dēneth the doinges in kinge Edwardes daies, and now also for an horrible ab¦surdite, as shall ap∣peare.
• * 1.226

  The .586 vntruthe. Vnproued as be∣fore.
• † 1.227

  A nevv terme for a nevv doctrine.
• † 1.228

  This is againste the Acte. For no Iurisdiction vvhat soeuer can be vsed, or exercised in Englāde vvithout the Princes special commission.
• * 1.229

  Act 20. Ioan. 20. Math. 26. Act. 8.
• * 1.230

  M. Horne frameth argumēts of his ovvn ād thē laieth thē forth as M. Fe∣kenhās ar¦gumētes.
• * 1.231

  M. Horne taketh vpō him to re∣strayn the gene∣ral vvor¦des of the statute to take avvay from the Prince the Auto∣rity of ex¦cōmuni∣cation.
• * 1.232

  See the ab¦surdity of M. Horne in expoū¦ding the Othe.
• * 1.233

  Edvvard. 6. Dei grat. &c Reuerēd. Thomae Cant Archiepisc. etc. Quando quidē omnis & iuris di••ēdi autho¦ritas, atque etiā iuris¦dictio omnimoda, tā illa quae Ecclesiastica dicitur, q̲ secularis, à regia potestate velut à supremo cap. &c. Dat. 7. die. mēs. Feb. An. 1546. & Regni nostri primo.

  Ibidem.

  Ad ordinādū igitur quoscūque intra dio∣coesin tuā Cātuar. ac ad omnes etiā sacros & presbyterari••s or∣dines {pro}mouēdū prae∣sent atosque etiam ad beneficia eccles. &c.

  Ib••dem.

  Per praesentes ad no∣strū dunt axat bene∣placitū duraturas cū cuiuslibet cōgruae & Ecclesiasticae coertio∣nis potestate.

  Per literas datas. 4. Maij. An. 1547. ad eundē Tho. Cantur. Per alias liter. datas dict 4. Maii.

  An. 1548.28. Iunij. Acts and Monu∣mentes Fol. 771.
• * 1.234

  An. 15••0. Decem. 15. Actes and monu∣mentes. Fol. 777.
• * 1.235

  Ibidem. Fol. 867.
• * 1.236

  Actes and Monu∣mentes. Fol. 693. & 720.
• * 1.237

  Horne Fol. 103. b. & 104. a.
• * 1.238

  Fol. 108. b
• * 1.239

  VVherof the whole alteratiō of religiō hath pro∣ceded in England.
• * 1.240

  Take hede M Horne of periu∣rie.
• * 1.241

  Fol. 104.
• * 1.242

  Malach. 5
• * 1.243

  2. Tim. 1.
• * 1.244

  Vide Am∣bros. de Poenitent. lib. 1. c. 2.
• * 1.245

  Math. 9.
• * 1.246

  Math. 9.
• * 1.247

  Lucae. 24.
• * 1.248

  Act. 19.
• * 1.249

  Act. 8.
• * 1.250

  Vide caput Spiritus sanctus, et cap. de ijs verò &c. vt Epis∣copi de consecra∣tione.
• * 1.251

  Exod. 24.
• * 1.252

  Exod. 29.
• * 1.253

  Num. 27.
• * 1.254

  The .587. Vntruth. For S. Paul saith so, as shall appeare.
• * 1.255

  The .588. vntruth. That is spokē of S Paule generally of the vvhole lawe.
• * 1.256

  Lyra.
• * 1.257

  The .589. vntruth. It maketh not a whit aga∣inst M. Fe¦kenhams cōclusion Aaron thē being not yet Priest at all.
• * 1.258

  The .590. vntruth. For the sequele is good, as it shal ap∣peare.
• * 1.259

  The .591. vntruth. The vvoorde temporall lewdely added to holy scripture.
• * 1.260

  M. Horne vseth no faire play vvith his aduersary.
• * 1.261

  Tha thE old testa∣ment is a figure of the nevv. Heb. 10.
• * 1.262

  1. Cor. 9. Non obli∣gabis os bo u•• triturā∣ti nūquid debobu•• cu¦ra est Deo? nā propter nos vtique scriptum est.
• * 1.263

  Ad Ga∣lath. 4.
• * 1.264

  1. Cor. 10. Haec in fi∣gura facta sunt nostri, & mox. Haec oīa cō¦tigerunt illis in fi∣gura.
• * 1.265

  Ad. He. 10. Vmbrā enī habens lex futurorū bonorū, nō ipsam ima¦ginem re∣rum.

  Greg. Na∣zianz. in ••rat. De S. Pascha. Pascha le∣gale figu∣ra figurae erat. &c. 1. Cor 13. Adhuc in aenigmate Illic facie ad faciem.
• * 1.266

  In orat. de S. Pascha. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.267

  Deut. 17. Qui autē superbierit nolens obe¦dire sacer∣dotis im∣perio, ex decreto Iu¦dicis mo∣rietur ho∣mo ille.
• * 1.268

  2. Par. 19.
• * 1.269

  Amarias aūt sacer∣dos & pō∣tifex ve∣ster in his quae ad Deū perti∣nēt praefi∣debit.
• * 1.270

  There is a greater necessity to haue one high prieste a∣mong the Christiās thē the Ie¦vves had.
• * 1.271

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.272

  M. Horne setteth forth his ovvn ar∣gumēts as thoughe they vver M. Feken∣hams.
• * 1.273

  1. Reg. 4. 1. Mach. 14
• * 1.274

  Mala. 2.
• * 1.275

  Deute. 17.
• * 1.276

  Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 3. Quibus honor tātus de Dei dignatione conceditur, vt quis∣quis sacerdoti eius, & ad tempus hic iu∣dicanti non obtēpe∣raret, statim necare∣tur.
• * 1.277

  Vide Exod. 24. &. 28.
• * 1.278

  Io. cap. 9. &. 12.
• * 1.279

  Lib. 1. hist. Tripa c. 9.
• * 1.280

  The .592 vntruthe. No maruail at all. For all Gods Coun∣cel that Paule she∣wed, is not expres∣sly mentioned in the Scripture. It is a most fond colle¦ction.
• * 1.281

  The 593. vntruthe The Apostles ex∣ercised such iuris∣diction vvith out any commission, but from God.
• * 1.282

  The .594. vntruthe. The bishops exer∣cised al kind of Iu∣risdictiō ecclesiast. before Constantine vvas borne.
• * 1.283

  The .595. vntruthe. Constantin gaue to the Pope no suche Authority, but fur∣dered the executiō thereof.
• * 1.284

  Dist. 86.
• * 1.285

  The .596. vntruthe. For this graūt tou∣ched not the eccle∣siastical ordinarye iurisdiction of Bis∣shops.
• * 1.286

  The .597. vntruthe. Bertrandus affir¦meth the plain cō∣trary.
• * 1.287

  Act. 20.
• * 1.288

  M. Horns asser••ion incredi∣ble.
• * 1.289

  Vide const. Apostol. Clementis in Tom. 1. Cōcil vlt. editionis.
• * 1.290

  Eus. eccle. hist. li. 5. c. 23. lib. 7. cap. 26. & 28. lib. 6. cap. 43. So¦cra. lib. 2. cap. 43. Niceph. li. 4. cap. 22.
• * 1.291

  Euse. li. 4. ca. 11. & li. 7. ca. 26. Chryso in orat cōtra gent. quòd vnus sit Deus.

  Euse. eccl. hist. li. 7. cap. 26. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 28. Idē. & eo∣dē lib cap. 25.
• * 1.292

  Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 25. Vide decr. epist. An∣theri.
• * 1.293

  Ievvel in his reply. pag. 223.
• * 1.294

  Vide Sab. Aenead. 7. lib. 7.
• * 1.295

  Niceph. li. 14. c. 39.
• * 1.296

  Niceph li. 7. cap. 46.
• * 1.297

  VVhat maner of iurisdicti∣on cōstan¦tin gaue to the Bishopes.
• * 1.298

  Euseb. li. 4 cap. 27. De vita Constant.
• * 1.299

  VVhat kinde of iurisdicti∣on Theo∣dosius ā•• Carolus Magnus gaue the Bisshops.
• * 1.300

  Vide. c. quicūque etc. volumus. 11. q. Quicūque litem ha∣bens siue petitor fue∣rit (aliàs siue reus) vel d•• cursis tempo∣rum curriculis, siue cum negotium pero∣ratur, siue cum iam coeperit promi sentē¦tia: si iudiciū elege∣rit sacrosanctae sedis a••tistitis, ilico sine aliqua dubitatione, etiam si pars alia refragatur, ad epis∣coporum iudicium, cum sermone liti∣gantium dirigatur. Petrus Bertrandus in libello de iurisdi∣ctione ecclesiasticae. Sed dices quòd ista lex est abrogata vt videtur tangere glo∣sa ibidem, sed hoc non valet, quia li∣cet ista lex non fue∣rit in corpore iuris redacta, tamen pro∣pter hoc nō est abro∣gata. imò. &c cōsider hovv hād∣somly M, Horn al∣leageth Bertrādus. Vide. Horne. fol. 82.
• * 1.301

  Consider how hā∣somly M. Horne alleageth Bertran∣dus.
• * 1.302

  Vide Horn Fol. 82.
• * 1.303

  The Po∣pes au∣thoritie that M. Horne denieth, confessed by infi∣delles.
• * 1.304

  Ammian. Marc. re∣rū Rom. lib. 15. Euseb. lib. 7. c. 26.
• * 1.305

  Vide libel∣lū eius ad∣iunctū e∣pistolis Leonis 1. impress. Col. in fo. cap. 13.
• * 1.306

  Augustin. Stenchus Eugubin.
• * 1.307

  In Nomocanō, Ph••∣tij. titulo. 8. Distinct. 96. c. Constantinus. Quoniam vbi prin∣cipatus Sacerdotum & Christianae reli∣gionis caput ab im∣peratore coelesti con∣stitutum est, iustum non est, vt illic im∣perator terrenus ha∣beat potestatem.
• * 1.308

  Act. 15.
• * 1.309

  The .598. vntruth. For the Apostles and the Elders, named of S. Luke vvere priestes.
• * 1.310

  The .599. vntruth. M. Feckē∣hā saied not of the Apostles alone, but by the Apostles and prie∣stes, which is true.
• * 1.311

  The .600. vntruth. S. Luke saieth no such thīg of the vvhole congre∣gation.
• * 1.312

  The .601. vntruthe. The people had not to doe vvith deter∣mination of it.
• * 1.313

  The .602. vntruthe. For it proueth, Iu∣risdiction in the clergy, and povver to make ecclesia∣stical lawes, vvith∣out con∣mission from the Prince. Act. 15. Concer∣ning the decree of the Apo∣stles made at Hieru∣salem.
• * 1.314

  Concer∣ning this vvorde prieste.
• * 1.315

  Prebstre. Prete. Priester. Priest.
• * 1.316

  Theodoret. in commē∣tar. in epi. 1. Tim. 3. & Phil. 2.
• * 1.317

  Hom. 36. in 1. cor. 4.
• * 1.318

  Act. 15.
• * 1.319

  Act. 15.
• * 1.320

  Ibidē. 14.
• * 1.321

  Ibidem. 2.
• * 1.322

  To .1. Cōc. Act. 1. pa. 745. vel postr. edit. tom. 3. pag. 19. Act. 1. pa. 775. & pag. 47. Tom. 2. edit. postr.
• * 1.323

  Act. 8.
• * 1.324

  Act. 15.
• * 1.325

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.326

  1. Cor. 13.
• * 1.327

  The .603. vntruth. For the scriptures report so much in effect.
• * 1.328

  The .604. vntruth. The actes speake of no such visitatiō.
• * 1.329

  The .605. vntruth, as it shall appeare.
• * 1.330

  The .606. vntruth, slaunde∣rous bold¦ly auou∣ched, but no vvay proued.
• * 1.331

  The .607. Vntruth. slāderous as before.
• * 1.332

  The .608. Vntruth. The titles of diuerse of thē are to be foūd there.
• * 1.333

  The .609. Vntruth. The Bis∣shops of the Canō lavve, are such as the Scri∣pture de∣scribeth.

  Lib. 50. Tit. 4. De muner. & honor.
• * 1.334

  The .610. Vntruth. Euer repeted, but neuer proued.
• * 1.335

  The .611 Vntruthe. For it proueth an ordinarie power in bisshops aboute the Sacrament of confirmation, vvhich they exer∣cised vvithout any commission from the Prince.
• * 1.336

  The 612. Vntruthe. For he speaketh bothe of the ordi∣narie vse of that Sacrament, and of the extraordinarie gift of Miracles,
• * 1.337

  The 613. Vntruthe. For M. Fekenham argueth not so. It is your ovvne Ar∣gument.
• * 1.338

  Vide fol. 105. col. ••. in princip. & fol. 110. col. 2. in fine.
• * 1.339

  Double authority in the A∣postles, ordinary and extra ordinary.
• * 1.340

  Luc. 221. M. Ievvel in his re∣ply agaīst M. D. Har¦ding.
• * 1.341

  Matt. 28. Marc. 16. Act. 20. Math. 18. Act. 16. 2. Tim. 4. 1. Thess. 5. 1. Tim. 5.
• * 1.342

  Act. 8.
• * 1.343

  Act. 15.
• * 1.344

  The holy ghost is geuen in confirma¦tion.
• * 1.345

  Hiero. cont. Lucifer. Si hoc loco quaeras, qui in Ecclesia bapti∣zatus, nisi per ma∣nus episcopi non ac∣cipiat spiritum san∣ctum: disce hanc ob∣seruationē ex ••a au∣thoritate descendere, quod post ascensum Domini spirit{us} S. ad Apostolos des••endit, & multis in locis idē factitatū reperimus. August. Contra lite∣ras Petiliani. lib. 2. Cap. 104.
• * 1.346

  M. Horn•• extraordi¦nary ray∣ling pro∣cesse.
• * 1.347

  Li. 50. tit. 4. de mu∣neribus & honoribus. Act. 15.
• * 1.348

  2. Cor. 5. Ephes. 6.
• * 1.349

  vvhether their visi∣tations novve are al scriptu∣rely.

  1. Tim. 5. Habentes damnatio∣nem quiae primam fi∣dē irritam fecerunt. See the in¦iunctions
• * 1.350

  False Latī in maister Horns ar¦ticles pro¦posed to be subscri¦bed in his visitation at Oxford
• * 1.351

  Novvell fol 86. fac. 2.
• * 1.352

  A mini∣strīg prea¦cher that could not read his licēce ge∣uen him to preach
• * 1.353

  See what clerkly and god∣ly curats, are novv in Eng∣land.
• * 1.354

  Matt. 4.
• * 1.355

  The trū∣petou•• mi¦nister at Otter∣borne.
• * 1.356

  3. Reg. 12. Fecit pro∣phana in excelsis, et sacerdotes de extre∣mis populi qui nō erāt de filijs Leui.
• * 1.357

  Luth. su∣per postil. 1. Domin. aduentus.
• * 1.358

  In vvhat sense a mā may call their visi∣tations in England scripture∣ly visita∣tions or preachīgs
• * 1.359

  Matt. 4.
• * 1.360

  O detesta¦ble im∣piety.
• * 1.361

  The er∣ror agaīst the reall presence of Christ in the sa∣cramēt, is for any lavve made to the cōtra∣ry to be taken for heresie as it vvas vvont to be.
• * 1.362

  An. ••. Ed. 6. cap 1. & An. 1. Eli. cap. 1.
• * 1.363

  A man may fynd as good matter a∣gainst the decrees of the Apo∣stles as Lu¦ther fyn∣deth a∣gainst the generall Coūcells.
• * 1.364

  Prius fo. 58
• * 1.365

  The .614. vntruthe. The argu∣ment i•• right good, as it hath in the for∣mer diui∣sion ap¦peared.
• * 1.366

  The .615. vntruthe. For M. Fekenham said not the matters done at Corinthe to haue bene done beside the Ghospel, but the decrees of the Apostles so to haue bene done.
• * 1.367

  The .616. vntruthe. for neither the Co∣rinthes nor the Ca∣tholikes novv, ob∣i••cted in like sorte.
• * 1.368

  The .617. vntruthe. S. Ambrose saith not: of Gods lavve: but secundum legem, according to the lavve: and he mea∣neth the old law Le¦uit. 19. not the lavv of the Gospell.
• * 1.369

  The .618. vntruthe. It vvas S. Paules lavv, though Gods lavve also, as shall appeare.
• * 1.370

  The .619. vntruthe. If you meane the vvriten gospel, as you seme to doe, ād as you must do, if you reason vvel.
• * 1.371

  The .620. vntruthe. For they are bothe Gods or∣dinaunces and S. Paules to, as shal ap∣peare.
• * 1.372

  yea by inspiratiō of the ho∣ly Ghost. not of a∣ny vvri∣ten Gos∣pell.
• * 1.373

  The .621. Vntruth. The Tra∣ditions that S. Paule spea∣keth of, are other then the vvriten Gospel, and that you meane.
• * 1.374

  The .622. Vntruth. Missequoting is no missereporting.
• * 1.375

  The .623. Vntruth. He denieth thē not to be his ovvn, be∣cause they vvere the Lords cōmaun∣dement••. Bothe d•• stand wel together, as shal appeare.
• * 1.376

  The .624. Vntruth. For M. Fekenham•• purpos was so much holpē hereby, that you neuer durste come nigh his Ar∣gument.
• * 1.377

  2. Thes. 2. Concer∣ning cer¦taine de∣crees and orders made by S. Paule alleaged by M. Fe∣kenham.
• * 1.378

  M. Horne being not able to ansvvere M. Fekē∣hās 2. al∣legation, dissem∣bleth it altoge∣ther.
• * 1.379

  Act. 15. & 16.
• * 1.380

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.381

  1. Cor. 16. 1. Thess. 4 Scitis quae praeceptae dederim vobis.
• * 1.382

  Iudic. 7. gladius domini & Gedeonis. Credide∣rūt domi∣no, et ser∣uo eius Mosi. Ioan. 7.
• * 1.383

  A distin∣ctiō to be noted, of God his lavves, and the Churches lavves.
• * 1.384

  A differē∣ce be∣tvvene the Apo∣stles ordi¦nances, and those that pro∣perly are called Gods or∣dinances.
• * 1.385

  August. 118. ad Ia∣nuar. Et ideo non praecepit quo dein∣ceps ordi∣ne sume∣retur, vt Apostolis per quos Ecclesias dispositu∣rus erat, seruaret hunc ho∣norem.
• * 1.386

  Ibidem. Vnde intel¦ligi da∣tur (quia multū e∣rat, vt in epistolae to¦tum illum agendi or∣dinē insi∣nuaret, quē vni∣uersa per orbem ser∣uat Eccle∣sia) ab ip∣so ordina∣tum esse, quod nul∣la morum diuersita∣te varia∣tur.

  M Feken∣ham spea¦keth of one thīg, and M H reasoneth agaīst an other thing.
• * 1.387

  Vide Hep∣tacolō. L. Campestri cōtra Lu∣ther. Apo∣logiam. An. 1523.
• * 1.388

  1. Cor. 5.
• * 1.389

  Lu. 5. &. 7
• * 1.390

  Gal 5.
• * 1.391

  Mat. 5. Philip. 3. Coloss. 2. 1. Tim. 3. Tit. 2.
• * 1.392

  Ioan. 16. &. 14.
• * 1.393

  ••ibro. 10. dist. Eccl. cap. 2.
• * 1.394

  Lib. 7. hist. Trip. ca. 12
• * 1.395

  Theod. li. 5. hist. Ec∣cles. ca. 18.
• * 1.396

  The .625. vntruthe. It vvas in the time of Syluester, as shal appeare.

  Nicep. lib. 8. ca. 14. Sozom. lib. 1. ca. 17. Lib. 2. to .2. He. 68. Lib. 1. cap. 1.
• * 1.397

  The .626. vntruthe slaunderous. For both stād vvel to∣gether, as shall ap∣peare.
• * 1.398

  The .627. vntruthe. As it shall appeare out of Cusanus M. Hornes ovvn Au∣thor.
• * 1.399

  The .628. vntruthe. It is no part of ec∣clesiastical Iurisdi∣stion, as the Em∣perou•• doth it.
• * 1.400

  The .629. vntruthe. No such thing can be gathered of those Authour••.
• * 1.401

  The .630. vntruthe. For if he thought not so, as he saied, it vvas no Policy, but a sinne.

  Lib. 1. cap. 2. Lib. 8. cap. 16. Euseb. lib. 3. De vita Constant.
• * 1.402

  Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 4.
• * 1.403

  The .631. vntruthe. He relented nothīg but shevved his due Reuerence.
• * 1.404

  The 632. vntruthe. Facing, as hath be∣fore ben shevved in the .2. booke cap. 3.
• * 1.405

  The .633. vntruthe. Athanasius attri∣buted no such Au∣thority, to the Em∣perour, but of all mē, denied it most vnto him. See be∣fore. fol. 94. and so forth.
• * 1.406

  The .634. vntruthe. The Pope and the Bisshoppes Iudged it, not the'mperor, but vvith thei•• leaue. See before Fol. ••1.
• * 1.407

  The 635. vntruthe. this or els, foloweth not. Many are som∣tymes called to iudge betvvene parties, vvho yet haue no Authori∣tye ouer the par∣ties.
• * 1.408

  The .636. vntruthe. This Ergo, is your ovvne, not M. Fe∣kenhams.
• * 1.409

  Constan∣tine ac∣knowled∣geth the cleargies superio∣rity.
• * 1.410

  Ex. Ruff. lib. 10. ec∣cles. hist. cap. 2.
• * 1.411

  Li. ••. c. 26.
• * 1.412

  Li. 3. c. 15.
• * 1.413

  Vide fo. 118
• * 1.414

  Synodus sexta ī ser∣mone acclamatorio ad Imperatorem. Act. 18. fo. 403. co. 1. Arrius diuisor atque partitor Trinitatis insurgebat, & conti∣nuò Cōstantinus sem¦per Augustus, & Sil¦uester laudabilis, ma¦gnam atque insignē in Nicea Synodum congregabant.
• * 1.415

  Eusebius. in Chro••. Damas. in Pontif. Isi∣dorus tom. 1. Cōcil. in praefat. Nic. Cōc. Pla¦tina in Siluestro. Rhe¦gino in Chron. Panta¦leō in Chronograph. Photius Patriarch. Cōst. de 7. Conc. Oecum. ad Michaelē Bulg. Principem.
• * 1.416

  Vide fol. 118. lib. 1.
• * 1.417

  Malèdi∣cta glosa quae de∣struit tex∣tum.
• * 1.418

  Aug. ad Consentiū de māda∣tio Tom. 4
• * 1.419

  The po∣licy of our newe euangeli∣cal schole
• * 1.420

  Ruffinus. li. 1. ca. 2. Nice. li. 8. cap. 16.
• * 1.421

  Cap. 4. fo. 103. et. 104.
• * 1.422

  Lib. 2. cap. 2. & 3. fol. 90. & sequentib. Item. fol. 94. et seq.
• * 1.423

  De officio eius, cui mandata est Iurisdi∣ctio: Mā∣datam.
• * 1.424

  The .637. vntruth. For that historie maketh much for M. Feck. purpose, as shall appeare. Lib. 6. cap. 7. Lib. 4. cap. 2.
• * 1.425

  The .638. vntruthe slaunde∣rous. M. Fekenhā repor∣teth the story tru∣ly.
• * 1.426

  The .639. vntruthe. He doth simply de∣ny it, as shall ap∣peare.
• * 1.427

  The .640. vntruth. He meant not so, as it plainly appereth by Sozomenus, Paulus Diac. and Cassiodore.
• * 1.428

  The .641. vntruthe. by the Circumstā∣ces no such thing appereth.
• * 1.429

  Lib. 11. cap. 3.
• * 1.430

  The .642. vntruth. They acknovvled∣ged nor thereby a∣ny such Iurisdictiō, but they craued his ayde and assistance for quyet and or∣der sake.
• * 1.431

  The .643. vntruth. M Fekenham saith not, they required thēperour to deale in debating such matters, but only to be present.
• * 1.432

  A cōfuta∣tion of M. Horns an¦svvere to Valenti∣niās story
• * 1.433

  Hist. trip. li. 7. c. 12.
• * 1.434

  Nicephor. lib. 11. c. 3.
• * 1.435

  Trip. li. 7. cap. 12. Sozo. lib. 6. cap. 7. Pau. Dia. in addit: ad Eutro∣pium.

  Niceph. li. 11 cap. 13. Euagrius lib. 1. ca. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.436

  Tripart. ca. 12. li. 7. Vt dignaretur ad do∣gmatis emendationē interesse. Paul. Diac. quatenus dignaretur ad dogmatis emēda∣tionem interesse.
• * 1.437

  Paul. Diaconus. Mthi cum subiecto po¦pulo de huiusmodi ne¦gotijs curiosè agere fas nō est. vt ergo vi∣detur vobis sacerdo∣tibus, facite.
• * 1.438

  Tripart. lib. 7. ca. 12. Mihi cū vnus de po∣pulo sim, fas non est. & caet.
• * 1.439

  Sozom. li. 6. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.440

  Eutrop. Cui & nos qui guber¦nam{us} imperiū, since∣rè capita nostra sub∣mittamus, & eius monita dū tanquam homines deliquerim{us} necessariò veluti cu∣rantis medicamenta suscipiamus.

  Tripart. li. 7. ca. 8. Theodor. li. 4 ca. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  Eutropius ibidem. Gratias tibi ago D••¦mine, quia huic vir•• ego quidē co••mmisi corpora, tu autem animas.
• * 1.441

  Ambros. lib. 5. epi∣stola. 32.
• * 1.442

  The .644. vntruth. The storie is by M. Fekenham truelye reported;
• * 1.443

  The .645. Vntruth. It serueth the pur∣pose many vvaies, as shall appeare.
• * 1.444

  Theod. lib. 5. c. 18.
• * 1.445

  Marke here, Gentle Reader, hovve M. Horne telleth only the Storie, and so stealeth avvaye vvithout anye an∣svveare in the vvorlde.
• * 1.446

  A confu∣tation of M. Horns ansvvere to the sto¦ry of The¦odosius.
• * 1.447

  Theod. lib. 5. c. 18.
• * 1.448

  The story of Theo∣dosius the Em∣perour and S. Ambrose, opened.
• * 1.449

  Niceph. li. 12. cap. 40 & 41. Theod. lib. 5. cap. 18.
• * 1.450

  Of the penaunce of this Empe∣rour en∣ioyned him by S. Am∣brose.
• * 1.451

  Mihi porro non mo∣dò id tangere licet, verum etiam coelum ipsum clausum est. Neque enim diuini illius oraculi non me∣mini quod disertis verbis statuit: quae∣cunque a sacerdoti∣bus Dei ligata fue∣rint in terris, ea etiā in coelis certa esse ligata.
• * 1.452

  Te autem oro, vt vincula mea soluas.

  Et mox Tuae vero, ò vir diui∣ne id est operae, indi∣care mihi & tempe∣rare sacrae medicinae remedia.
• * 1.453

  Vide Cod. Theod. li. 9. tit. 40. lib. 13 In Cod. Iu∣stin. lib. 9. tit. de poe∣nis: Si vindicari.
• * 1.454

  Niceph. li. 12. ca. 41. Vix aliquando tandē (inquit) quod discri∣mē sit inter impera∣torem & sacrorum antistitem, cognoui: vix veritatis docto∣rem inueni.
• * 1.455

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.456

  Vide su∣pra fol. 119. b. &. 120. a.

  The story of, Theo∣dosius maketh against manie pointes of M. Horne•• doctrine.
• * 1.457

  M. Horns starting holes, vvhen he is pressed mere.
• * 1.458

  Paulinus in vita Ambrosij.
• * 1.459

  Ibidem.
• * 1.460

  Niceph. li. 12. cap. 41 Vinculum quod Deus coelitus sub calculo comprobauit, suscipe.
• * 1.461

  Ambros lib. 5. epistola 28. ad ipsum Theodo∣sium. Ita me Deus ab omnibus tribulatio∣nibus liber••t, quia non ab homine neque per hominem, sed a∣pertè mihi interd••ctū aduerti: Dum enim essem sollicitus, ipsa nocte qua proficisci parabam, venisse qui∣dem visus es, sed mi∣hi sacrificium offerre non licuit.
• * 1.462

  Officiorum lib. 2 ca. 27. Sic Episcopi affe∣ctus boni est, vt optet sanare infirmos, ser∣pentia auferre vulne∣ra: adurere aliqua non abscindere, postre¦mò quod sanari non potest, cum dolore abscindere.
• * 1.463

  Niceph. li. 14. cap. 3. Adeò reli∣giosus Theodosius fuit, vitā∣que suam accuratis∣simè ad diuinas leges cō∣posuit.
• * 1.464

  Cōc. Mi∣leuit. c. 19
• * 1.465

  Tō. 1. cōc. in concil. Aquil.
• * 1.466

  Art. 4. fol. 108.
• * 1.467

  Cal. Insti∣tut. cap. 8.
• * 1.468

  Cal. in. 7. ca. Amos.
• * 1.469

  The 646. Vntruth, M. Fekenham vvas not beguiled, but you.
• * 1.470

  The 647. vntruth. He doth entreat, a•• shall appeare.
• * 1.471

  The .648. Vntruth. excōmunicatiō be∣longeth to the Bis∣shoppe by Christes cōmission without ani furder cōmissiō frō the Church, as it hath before bene declared.
• * 1.472

  you do so in dede, but none els beside you.
• * 1.473

  The .649. vntruth. The fence is not al∣tered.
• * 1.474

  The .650: vntruth. For he saieth it by the vvay of an obie∣ction.
• * 1.475

  The 651. vntruth. M. Feken¦ham slaū¦dereth not the Fathers.
• * 1.476

  The .652. vntruth. It ouer∣throweth not M. Fekenhās purpose, but cōfir∣meth it.
• * 1.477

  Vide Cal∣ui institut. editas in folio. Anno 1551. li. 4. cap. 11. fol. 451.
• * 1.478

  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.
• * 1.479

  In the En¦glish trā∣slation. fol. 402.
• * 1.480

  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.
• * 1.481

  Printed in Londō An. 1562.
• * 1.482

  M. Caluin and M. Horn cō∣demne aswel old holy Bi∣shops, as the late acte of parlia∣mente.
• * 1.483

  See fol. .448.
• * 1.484

  Fol. 480.
• * 1.485

  The 653. vntruth. For it ser∣euth mu∣che more for our purpose, as shall appeare.
• * 1.486

  The .654. vntruth. This is not M. Fekenhās cōclusion
• * 1.487

  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.
• * 1.488

  ••aluin in ••mos c. 7. ••ol. 292.
• * 1.489

  Fol. 127.
• * 1.490

  Caluin: in cōment. in 1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.491

  Fol. 127.
• * 1.492

  Fol. 14.
• * 1.493

  Caluin vbi suprà.
• * 1.494

  Fol. 106. b
• * 1.495

  Fol. 4. b. &. 5. a.
• * 1.496

  Fol. 104. a
• * 1.497

  In praefat. Centur. 7.
• * 1.498

  An. 1. Eliz▪
• * 1.499

  Melanch∣thō in exa¦mine ordi∣nandorū. Luth. con∣tra articu¦los Louan. Tom. 2.
• * 1.500

  The Sta∣tut of Praeroga∣tiuae Re∣gis.
• * 1.501

  VVhy the Othe vvas de∣uised.
• * 1.502

  Note the Absurdi∣ty.
• * 1.503

  Athan. in epist. ad so¦litariam vitam a∣gentes.
• * 1.504

  The .655. vntruth. Athana∣sius bea∣reth no vvitnes against him selfe but agaīst you.
• * 1.505

  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.
• * 1.506

  Then S. Ambrose meaneth against you, as A∣thanasius did be∣fore.
• * 1.507

  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
• * 1.508

  No man saith, it is vnlavv∣full to haue any doinges, but to haue al go¦uernmēt as, the O∣the pro¦noūceth.
• * 1.509

  The .657. vntruth. Athanasi{us} repro∣ueth vt∣terly the Prīces Au¦thority in Ecclesia∣sticall causes.
• * 1.510

  The .658. vntruthe. It is your ovvne sequele, not M. Fekenhams.
• * 1.511

  Athana∣sius in E∣pist. ad so∣litariā vi∣tam agē∣tes.
• * 1.512

  Athan. in epist. ad so¦lit. vitam agentes.
• * 1.513

  Ath. in¦dict. epist. ad solit.
• * 1.514

  Quādo au¦disti clemē¦tiss. impe∣rat. in causa fidei lai∣cos de Episcopo iudi∣casse? Et mox. Certè si vel scriptu∣rarum seriem diui∣narum, vel vetera tempora retracte∣mus, quis est qui ab∣nuat in causa fidei, in causa inquā fidei, Episcopos solere de imperatoribus, non imperatores, de Epi∣scopis iudicare?
• * 1.515

  Et postea. Si confe∣rēdum est de fide, sa¦cerdotum debet esse ista col∣latio.
• * 1.516

  Ambros. lib. 5. epi. 32.

  Ibidem.
• * 1.517

  VVhat materiall thing M. Horne hath lefte out tou∣ching this story of the deposition of Athanasius.
• * 1.518

  Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 8. & 17.

  Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 8.10. & 11.

  Trip. lib. 4. cap. 9.15 & 19.
• * 1.519

  Athanas. in Apolog. 2. contra Arrianos. Oportuit secundum canonem, & non ist•• modo iudicium fieri: oportuit scribere no∣bis omnibus, vt ita ab omnibus quod iu∣stum esset decernere∣tur. & mox. An ig∣nari estis hanc con∣suetudinem esse vt primum nobis s••ri∣batur, vt hinc quod iustum est, definiri possit? Quapropter si ist uc huiusmodi suspitio in episcopum concepta fuerit, id huc ad nostram Ec∣clesiam referri opor∣tuit.
• * 1.520

  Marke M. Fekē∣hams ine¦uitable ar¦gument.
• * 1.521

  Athanas. apol. 2. cōtra Ar∣ri. Qua fronte cō∣uentū sy∣nodi ap∣pellare audēt, cui Comes pr••sedit?
• * 1.522

  In his re∣plie Fol. 240.
• * 1.523

  A preti•• mūmery of M Ie∣vvel and M. Horn concer∣ning the Sardicēse councell.
• * 1.524

  Ath. in¦dict. epi∣stol. ad so∣lit. vitam agentes.
• * 1.525

  Theodor. li. 2. ca. 8. Niceph. li. 9. c. 12. Id quod Constans sic petierat Constātius autē assen¦serat.
• * 1.526

  Vide epist. Concil. Sard. in Theodor. li. 2 ca. 8. Tripart. li. 4. c. 24. Athanas. in epist. ad solit. vitā agentes. Cano. 4.5 7.8. & 13.
• * 1.527

  This coū∣cel vvas holden. An. 350.
• * 1.528

  M. Horne and Cal∣uins opi∣nion con¦futed by the pra∣ctise of Sardicē•••• Councell. Vide Ath••¦nas. ibidē.
• * 1.529

  Cano. 21. Omnis sy∣nodus di∣xit: vniuer¦sa quae con¦stituta sūt Catholica ecclesia in vniuerso orbe diffu¦sa custo∣diat.
• * 1.530

  Hier. 1.
• * 1.531

  Greg. Na∣zian. de Hier. dict. oratioe 18. ad subdi∣tos timore perculsos, & impera¦torē irasen¦tem.
• * 1.532

  Ezech. 34
• * 1.533

  Chrysost. Hom. 5. de verb. Esa.
• * 1.534

  Ign. epist. 7. ad Smyrnēs.
• * 1.535

  The .659 vntruth. Most impudent, as shall appeare.
• * 1.536

  The .660. vntruth. After the same ma∣ner, as before.
• * 1.537

  The .661. vntruth. The Iu∣risdiction of church Ministers is not li∣mited in these vvordes
• * 1.538

  Ioan. 10.
• * 1.539

  This is so in dede but not this only.
• † 1.540

  Be not your Cō∣sistories Courtly and pom∣pous M. Horne? Remēbre your self, I pray you.
• * 1.541

  Hiere. c. 1.
• * 1.542

  Ezech. 34.
• * 1.543

  1. Cor. 4. &. 5.

  Galath. 5. Vtinā ab∣scindātur qui vos contur∣bant. 2. Cor. 10.
• * 1.544

  Hierem. 1.
• * 1.545

  1. Cor. 4. Quid vul∣tis? in vir∣ga veniam ad vos, an in chari∣tate & spiritu mansuē∣tudinis?
• * 1.546

  Psalm 22 Virga tua & baculus tuus, ipsa me cōsola∣ta sunt. 1. Cor. 5. In interi∣tū carnis, vt spiritus saluus sit in die Do∣mini no∣stri Iesu Christi. Hierem. 1. Ollam suc¦cēsam ego video.
• * 1.547

  Contra gentiles quod vnus Deus.
• * 1.548

  Pro Amb. vide Ni∣ceph. li. 12. ca. 41. Pro Aug. hom. 49. ex. 50. homilijs. Tom. 10.
• * 1.549

  If the matter of the Princely Mini∣stery is but earthly and outvvard, as you he••e confesse, hovve can the Prince haue su∣preme gouerne∣ment in matters heauenly and spi∣ritual, as the prin∣cipal matter of his royal povver?
• † 1.550

  VVhy slippe you so then avvay M. Horne, and geue your selfe no in∣different interpre∣tation vpon his vvordes?
• * 1.551

  The .662. vntruthe. For his vvords im¦port no such incō∣uenience, as shall appeare.
• * 1.552

  The .667. vntruth. For so much me∣diation belongeth also to the Priest through Christ.
• * 1.553

  So S. Paul reasoneth Heb. 7.
• * 1.554

  Matt. 16.
• * 1.555

  4. Reg. 5.
• * 1.556

  Hovve Christ ād hovv the Priest is a media∣tour.
• * 1.557

  The .668. vntruth. most im∣pudent, as by that hath bene sayd, vvel appereth.
• * 1.558

  The .669. vntruth. Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.559

  The .670. vntruth. Ridicu∣lous.
• * 1.560

  The .671. vntruthe. False trā∣slation.
• * 1.561

  Ignatius ad Smyr∣nenses.
• * 1.562

  Prius f. 95
• * 1.563

  In the preface. fol. 5. in this book▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.564

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.565

  Plutarch. in M. An∣tonio.
• * 1.566

  Vide Theodoret. im∣patibilis Dial. 3. Eucharistias & ob∣lationes non admit∣tunt, quòd non con∣fiteantur, Euchari∣stian esse carnem seruatoris nostri Ie∣su Christi, quae pro peccati, nostris pas∣sa est, quā pater sua benigni∣tate susci∣tauit.
• * 1.567

  Propterea non licet sine episcopo ne{que} of∣ferre, ne{que} sacrificiū immolare, ne{que} mis∣sas celebrare.
• * 1.568

  Ad Heronem. Nihil sine episcopis agas. Sacerdotes enī sunt, tu verò minister sacerdotū, illi bapti∣zant, sacra faciunt, ordināt, manus impo¦nunt, tu verò eis mi∣nistras, vt Hie••osoly∣mis S. Stephanus Ia∣cobo, & praesbyteris.
• * 1.569

  M. Fekenhams ar∣gument deducted out of Ignatius.
• * 1.570

  The .672. vntruth. Flat false, as shal ap¦peare.
• * 1.571

  The .673. vntruth. This is not M Fe¦kenhams Ergo: but your own
• * 1.572

  The .674. vntruth. Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.573

  The 675. vntruthe. Most impudent ād outragiously slaū∣derous, at it shal ap∣peare.
• * 1.574

  The .676. vntruth. All copies haue those vvordes. M. Fekēham hath not put them in.
• * 1.575

  The .677. vntruth. Pelagius vvas no Englishe Monke.
• * 1.576

  Lib 3.
• * 1.577

  Lib. 5.
• * 1.578

  The .678. and .679. vntruthes. For S. Augustine in the saied bookes is plain for the Popes Primacy, not for the Princes.
• * 1.579

  The .680. vntruth. None of those Fa∣thers wer of that minde.
• * 1.580

  An. 1528. in fol.

  An. 1541. &. 1555. in fol.

  An. 1563. in 8.

  Lib primo cont. Iul. Cap. 2. in medio ca∣pitis. tom. 7.
• * 1.581

  Beda. li. ••. cap. 15. Polid. li. 3.
• * 1.582

  Aug. li. 3. cōtra ••ul.
• * 1.583

  Lib. 5.
• * 1.584

  Lib. 1. cō∣tra Iulia∣num.
• * 1.585

  Places out of S. Augu∣stine for the popes primacy.
• * 1.586

  Quis nescit, illum Apostolatus princi∣patum cu••li••et Epi∣scopatui praeferendū? De Bapt. contra Do∣nat. lib. 2. cap. 1. Epistola. 165.

  Numerate vel ab ipsa sede Petri: ipsa est petra, quam non vincunt superbae in∣ferorum portae. In Psalm. contra partem Donati. Epistola. 157. ad Optatum.

  Ab innocentio & Sozimo toto orbe Christiano dānati. Epistola. 90.91.92. & 93.

  Dicta epistola. 91. Patres non humana sed diuina decreuere sententia, vt quic∣quid de disiunctis, remotisque prouin∣cijs ageretur, non prius ducerent finiē∣dum, nisi ad huius sedis notitiam per∣ueniret, vbi tota hu∣ius authoritate, iusta quae fuerit pronun∣ciatio firmaretur.
• * 1.587

  Et Epistola. 93. Diligenter ergo et congruè Apostolico consulitis honori, ••onori inquā, illius, quem praeter illa quae sunt extrinseca, soli∣citudo manet omniū Ecclesiarum, super anxijs rebus quae sit tenenda sententia, antiquae scilicet re∣gulae formam sequu∣ti, quam toto semper ab orbe mecū nostis esse seruatam.

  August. contra. 2. Epist. Pelag. lib. 1. cap. 1. Quāuis ipse in eo praeemineas cel∣siore fas••igio speculae pastoralis.

  Haec ergo ad tuam potissimum dirigere sanctitatem nentam discenda quàm exa∣minanda, & num forsan aliquid displi∣cuerit emendanda constitui.

  Lib. ••. Et si posterior tempore prior loco. August. dict. lib. 1.
• * 1.588

  The .681. vntruth, most eui∣dent and Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.589

  The .682. vntruth. Ioined vvith a grosse er∣rour.
• * 1.590

  The .683. vntruthe slaunde∣rous, as al that know M. Feckenhā can vvit∣nesse.
• * 1.591

  The .648. vntruth, slaunde∣rous and Ievvish.
• * 1.592

  The .685. vntruth. heretical:
• * 1.593

  The .686. vntruth, in like maner plaine he¦reticall.
• * 1.594

  The .687. vntruth, Your do∣ctrine hath no affynite vvith Gods truthe.
• * 1.595

  The .688. vntruthe. M. Fekenham hath in no point belyed you in his shedule spread abrode, but vvil stand to al that is cōteyned therin.
• * 1.596

  The .689. vntruthe. The Catholike faith is no errour.
• * 1.597

  The .690. vntruthe slaunderous. Nei∣ther M. Fekenham. Nor other Catho∣likes doe impugne the Quenes Lavv∣full Authority, but onely suche as is novve proued to be vnlavvfully attributed to her Hignes, by such as you are.
• * 1.598

  Eus. l. 3. de vita Cōst.
• * 1.599

  Li. 3. Tom. 2. haeres. 75. Laod. Can. 50. Hier. con∣tra Iouin. Epiph. vbi supra.
• * 1.600

  M. Horne is asha∣med to shevve his do∣ctour.

  VViclef. li. 3. cap. 1. trialog. Solā pecca¦tū finalis impoenitē∣tiae, quod est pecca∣tum in spiritum sanctum, propriè est mortale.
• * 1.601

  D. Thomas 1.2. q. 72. Art. 5.
• * 1.602

  Mortall synne.
• * 1.603

  1. Cor. 6. Galat. 5.
• * 1.604

  Vide Con∣cil. Tridēt. Sess. 6. ca. 7. & Ses∣sion. 14. cap. 3.
• * 1.605

  Veniall synne.
• * 1.606

  Lib. 2. cō∣tra Iul. Pelag. To. 7. Fol. 213 ••. in Fol. Paris. Anno. 55.
• * 1.607

  Nō ide•• sine pecca∣to non su∣mus.
• * 1.608

  Sed in qui¦bus ab illo rebellāte, etsi nō lae∣taliter, sed veniali∣ter, tamen vincimur, in his cō∣trahimus, vnde quo∣tidie dica∣mus. Di∣mitte no∣bis debita nostra.
• * 1.609

  ve•• ge∣rentes de∣cernentis.
• * 1.610

  In Enchi∣••idio cap. 64. Rom. 8.
• * 1.611

  Sap. 9. Crimen. Peccatū.
• * 1.612

  1. Ioan. 1.
• * 1.613

  Tom 4. in Actis vvor maciensi∣bus. Fol. 650▪ & sequent. Pag. 656. in fine.
• * 1.614

  Lib. 13. cap. 23. & 24. Lib. 14. Cap. 4. & 9.
• * 1.615

  Roffensis cōtra Ar∣ticul. Lu∣theri. Art. 31. & 32. Vide & Cōcil. Tri∣dent. Sess. 6. Can. 25.
• * 1.616

  Rom 5.
• * 1.617

  Luca. 11.
• * 1.618

  Galat. 5.
• * 1.619

  In Euchi∣••idio c. 71. Delet om∣nino haec oratio mi∣nima & quotidia∣••a pecca∣ta. Cap. 72.
• * 1.620

  D. Thomas par. 3. q. 87. Art. 3.
• * 1.621

  Vide Aug. cōtra Iul. per totum.
• * 1.622

  Fol. 2.
• * 1.623

  Fol. 130.
• * 1.624

  Fol. 128.
• * 1.625

  The Ie∣suites.
• * 1.626

  See more of this in the For∣tresse an∣nexed to Vener. Bede. Fol. 73. & seq.
• * 1.627

  Mark the proui∣dence of God.
• * 1.628

  Parte. 1. Cap. 16. fol. 71. & sequen.
• * 1.629

  Genes. 9