A04468:2393
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.
But, ye will say, all this hitherto pertaineth nothing unto the Canonists, specially in the plural number.
But, ye wil saie, al this hitherto perteineth nothinge vnto the Canonistes, specially in the plural number.
Let us therefore see the practise of the Church of Rome: which is the Life, and soul of all the Canonists. 1Thus therefore it is noted in the Decrees, Qui non habet Uxorem, 2loco illius Concubinam debet habere: He that hath not a Wife, in stead of her must have a Concubine. Ye will say, there is error in the print. Be it so. Yet thus is it extant in many Copies, and it is well agreeable to your common practise.3 For y• best, y• you can make of the same place, is this: Is qui non habet Uxorem, & pro Uxore Concubinam habet, à Communione non repellatur: He that hath no Wife, and in stead of a Wife hath a Concubine, let him not be removed from the Communion.
Let vs therefore see the practise of the Churche of Rome: whiche is the Life, and soule of al the Canonistes. 1Thus therefore it is noted in the Decrées, Qui non habet Vxorem, 2loco illius Concubinam debet habere: He that hath not a Wife, in steede of her muste haue a Concubine. Ye wil saie, there is erroure in the printe. Be it so. Yet thus is it extant in many Copies, and it is wel agreable to your common practise.3