A Confutation of a Popish and Slanderous Libel, Treatise · Answer 2 – Answer 4
The aunswere.
The first consideration cōteineth two causes of your refusal, the one because the booke of Seruice, was repealed by Acte of Parliament, the other, for that Cranmer Ridley, and Latimer, were burned at Oxforde for it. To the first I aunswere, that if you accompt the aucthoritie of the Parliament of force to condempne it, why doe you not acknowledge th'aucthoritie of the same, in establishyng it, for anno. 1551. by all the states of the realme, that boke was allowed, and appoincted to bee vsed. Also by diuerse Actes of Parliamente, in the tyme of our soueraigne Ladies reigne, established, and cōfirmed. But it is no hard matter, to gather your traiterous meanyng, whiche is common to you, with all them of your religion. You accoumpte no actes of Parliament, passed in the tyme of kyng Edward, or Quéene Elizabeth, to be of any aucthoritie, beyng confirmed by the roiall assent of those, whom you esteme to be no lawfull Princes, seyng your father the Pope, hath pronounced sentence of depriuation against them.
Your seconde reason, I will tourne vponupon your owne necke. Seyng Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, did so constauntly suffer death, for the confirmation of that doctrine, whiche thei hadde taught, it is a good argumente, that thei dissembled not with vsus, but vttered that truthe vntounto vsus, wherein as thei liued, so thei were content to dye. The text of the Apostle to the Hebres. 13. you applie verie straungely, as though wee should thincke well of none, that suffreth death by martyrdom, wheras the Apostle meaneth cleane contrary, and exhorteth the Iewes, to followe the faithe of them, the ende of whose conuersation, thei had séen to be agreable to their doctrine, who, as thei had preached diligē tly, so did thei ende their liues by tormentes, in the same confession constauntely, and patiently.
The Papiste.
The seconde consideration is, that the saied booke so vniuersally condemned by all degrees of men here in this realme, was receiued and brought in againe only by the nobilitie and cōmons of this realme, cleane contrary to the whole mindes of our Clergie, no one person in the Parliamente did giuegive his consente thereunto. Besides that the whole conuocation did exhibite their boke to the contrarie. VVherin the shepe taking vponupon theim to establishe this boke, contrarie to the learnyng and conscience of their shepherdes, thei hauehave doen against the expresse wordes of our sauiour Christ, who in describing the office of good shepherde, and the duetie of good shepe saied that a good shepherde muste knowe his sheepe, and his sheepe muste knowe hym, heare his voice and followe hym. And the Apostle S. Paule in his Epistle Cap. 13. willed the Hebrues to obey their shepherdes, and spirituall gouernours, and to submitte themselues vntounto theim, for thei doe watch euen as men whiche muste geue accompte for their soules. Obey them therfore saieth S. Paule that they maie do it with ioie, and not with grief.
The aunswere.
Your seconde consideration, is determinable, by suche as are skilfull in the lawes of this realme, what persones muste concurre, in the Parliament, that it may be an Acte of Parliamente, and I doubte not, but the matter was so ordered, by the iudgemente of them that had knowledge, as was for the honour, and wealthe of the realme. But if any errour had been committed, at that tyme you speake of, it was since by all three estates in Parliament redressed, the same booke of seruice, by their aucthoritie being confirmed. But whereas you complaine, that the Shepe in that firste Parliament, tooke vponupon thē against their shepherdes, I aunswer naie, but the Shepherdes againste the Shepebiters, for your Cleargie consisted all of Wolues, and not of Shepherdes, wherefore it was the duetie of the Prince, with the nobles, and senatours of that Parliamente, to deliuer the Shepe out of their cruell tyrānie, and to banishe, and remoue all suche raueinous beastes, frō the flocke. And touchyng the booke, you saie thei exhibited, of what credite would you hauehave it to bee, when thei so shamefully refused conference, before the moste parte of the Parliamente, vponupon a friuolous pretence, in Westminster churche. At whiche time al wise menne sawe, that their cause was naught, whiche durste not abide the triall in the open light.
The Papiste.
The thirde consideration is, that it is prohibited by the Canons of the apostles, and by the generall caunselles also, that a christian man shoulde not communicate neither in Sacramentes nor yet in commō praiers, with Heritikes and Schismatikes. As it appeareth in the tenth Canon, and in the seconde Canon of the counsell holden at Antioche. It was decreed there, that it was not lawful to communicate with excōmunicate persones, nor to enter into any house, nor to praie with thē, nor lawfull to receiue them that are excommunicate out of one churche into another churche. And in the coūsel holdē at Laodicea, it was prohibited there, that the christiā men should enter into the churches or churche yerdes, of the heretikes, there to praie with them, and in the 33. Canon of the same counsell the like prohibition is there expressed for praier with Schismatikes. And in the 4. counsell holden at Carthage Canon 73. it was decreed, that christian men should nether praie nor singe with Heretikes. And who so euer did praie, singe, or communicate, with any excōmunicate person, whether he were of the Clergie or of the Laitie, shoulde be thereby excommunicated. An example we reade therefore, how the christian men at Constantinople would not cō municate with the Arianes, neither in Sacramentes, nor yet in commō praiers, notwithstādyng that the Arians did agree with the Christen menne in theim bothe, as in all Sacramentes, and in all poinctes of praiyng, sauing that the Arians did sing Gloria patri in filio, and the Christian menne, Gloria patri & filio, &c. And therfore, and for that onelyonly poinct, Ihō Chrysostome then beyng Bishop of Constantinople, did appoincte vntounto the christian men a seperate place, and maner of praier from them, as it appeareth in the sixth of the Historie Ecclesiastike. And therefore the notable doctour S. Augustine doth conclude, on thys wise, saiyng, that they shall not communicate in Sacramētes with vsus, whose doctrine we cannot approue and allowe.
The aunswere.
Your third consideration, standeth vppon a foolishe fallation of Sophistrie, called petitio principij, whiche is, whē a man will take that as true, whiche his aduersarie will not graunte hym. As you doe in this your argument, where you take that for a true principle, whiche you shall neuer be able to proue, namely that we are Heretikes, and Schismatikes. And so you committe double folie. Firste, in prouyng that so diligentely, whiche no manne will deny (whiche is, that a manne ought not to communicate in religion with Heretikes) and secondly, in bringing no proofe at all, of that, which all your aduersaries wil deny, namely that thei are Heretikes, or Schismatikes. For you must first prooue that thei are suche, before you can proue, that you ought to auoide their societie.