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…

After this foul lye followeth an^* other. Let him remember (say these Defenders) that they be his men that have decreed, that a priest for fornication ought not to be removed from his cure. To this we may say, that although he be not deprived of his cure, yet he may be punished other wise. But let us see, how they would prove that they say.^‡ By their note in their margin they send us for proof to the canon law. 3. quaest. 7. Lata. Extra de bigamis. Quia circa. As touching the chapter Lata, in the decrees we find none such And, in Causa. 3. quast. 7. there is nothing to this purpose. The paragraphe Quia circa. Extra. is understanded of them, who being in the state of bigamy, are not to be promoted to holy orders, and not of one who is already made priest, that he be not for Fornication removed. But, to understand, what was done to a priest, that had committed fornication, by order of law.^* in case any Bishop, or priest, or deacon, after degree of deaconship taken, had been convict of fornication, or adultery, he was deposed, and cast out of the Church, and enjoined to do penance among the laity. Which thing S. Sylvester at length mercifully changed, enjoining ^†ten years penance after a prescript form, which to our new clergy would seem very hard, and strait.