A04468:1300
A defence of the Apology of the Church of England containing an answer to…A defence of the Apologie of the Churche of Englande conteininge an answeare to…
A defence of the Apology of the Church of England containing an answer to a certain book lately set forth by M. Harding, and entitled, A confutation of &c. By John Jewel Bishop of Salisbury.A defence of the Apologie of the Churche of Englande conteininge an answeare to a certaine booke lately set foorthe by M. Hardinge, and entituled, A confutation of &c. By Iohn Iewel Bishop of Sarisburie.
Imprinted at London : In Fleetestreate, at the sign of the Elephant, by Henry Wykes, Anno 1567. 27. OctobrisImprinted at London : In Fleetestreate, at the signe of the Elephante, by Henry VVykes, Anno 1567. 27. Octobris
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
I doubt not,1 good Reader, but it shall easily appear, that M. Harding in either of these two parts was foully deceived. For first Chrysostom, as it is plain by his words,2 which M. Harding in his translation hath purposely falsified, expoundeth these Words of S. Paul, The Husband of One wife, not of a man, that never had but one wife in all his time, but of a man, that hath but one wife at one time. If M. Harding shall think, this Exposition to be strange, and unlikely, let him remember, that Chrysostom him self thereof writeth thus:3 Unius Uxoris virum. Non hoc veluti sanciens dicit, quasi non liceat absque Uxore Episcopum fieri, sed eius rei modum constituens. Judaeis quippe licitum erat, etiam Secundo Matrimonio jungi, & Duas itidem Simul habere Uxores: The Husband of One Wife: S. Paul writeth not this, as making a Law, as if it were not lawful for a man to be made a Bishop without a wife: but he appointeth an order in that behalf. For it was lawful for the Jews to be coupled in the Second Matrimony, and to have Two wives at one time.
I doubte not,1 good Reader, but it shal easily appeare, that M. Hardinge in either of these twoo partes was fowly deceiued. For firste Chrysostome, as it is plaine by his woordes,2 whiche M. Hardinge in his translation hath pourposely falsified, expoundeth these Woordes of S. Paule, The Husbande of One vvife, not of a man, that neuer had but one wife in al his time, but of a man, that hath but one wife at one time. If M. Hardinge shal thinke, this Exposition to be strange, and vnlikely, let him remember, that Chrysostome him selfe thereof writeth thus:3 Vnius Vxoris virum. Non hoc veluti sanciens dicit, quasi non liceat absque Vxore Episcopum fieri, sed eius rei modum constituens. Iudaeis quippe licitum erat, etiam Secundo Matrimonio iungi, & Duas itidem Simul habere Vxores: The Husbande of One VVife: S. Paule writeth not this, as makinge a Lawe, as if it were not lawful for a man to be made a Bishop without a wife: but he appointeth an order in that behalfe. For it was lawful for the Jewes to be coupled in the Seconde Matrimonie, and to haue Tvvoo vviues at one time.