A04468:2436
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.
What need we many words in so clear a case? The whole practise of your Church, M. Harding, professeth the same. If a Priest marry a Wife, ye Suspend him: ye Excommunicate him: ye Deprive him: ye Disquiet, and trouble the whole Church. But if he keep a Concubine, one, two, or moe, ye are then contented, and ready, not only to dissemble it, but also with favour to excuse it. For so ye say, as it is alleged before, Clericus Concubinarius in officijs vitandus non est, 1nisi sit notorius: A Priest, that keepeth a Concubine, onlesse he be very notorious, may not be eschewed in his Service. Again ye shall find this lesson specially noted in your Rubric, 2as it is saide before, Qui non habet Uxorem, loco illius Concubinam debet habere: He that hath not a Wife, in stead of her ought to have a Concubine. Ye will say, There is an Error in your print: which thing may easily be granted, specially the whole Book being otherwise so full of errors. But would God your errors in Life, & Doctrine were no greater. Howe be it, it followeth immediately in the same Decree, Is qui non habet Uxorem, & pro Uxore Concubinam habet, à Communione non repellatur: Who so hath no Wife, and in stead of a Wife hath a Concubine, let him not be removed from the Communion. In these words, I trow, ye will say, there is no error.
What néede wée many woordes in so cleare a case? The whole practise of your Churche, M. Hardinge, professeth the same. If a Prieste marie a Wife, ye Suspende him: ye Excommunicate him: ye Depriue him: ye Disquiet, and trouble the whole Churche. But if he kéepe a Concubine, one, twoo, or moe, yée are then contented, and ready, not onely to dissemble it, but also with fauoure to excuse it. For so ye saie, as it is alleged before, Clericus Concubinarius in officijs vitandus non est, 1nisi sit notorius: A Prieste, that keepeth a Concubine, onlesse he be very notorious, maie not be eschewed in his Seruice. Againe ye shal finde this lesson specially noted in your Rubrike, 2as it is saide before, Qui non habet Vxorem, loco illius Concubinam debet habere: He that hath not a Wife, in steede of her ought to haue a Concubine. Ye wil saie, There is an Errour in your print: whiche thing maie easily be graunted, specially the whole Booke beinge otherwise so ful of errours. But would God your errours in Life, & Doctrine were no greatter. Howe be it, it foloweth immediatly in the same Decree, Is qui non habet Vxorem, & pro Vxore Concubinam habet, à Communione non repellatur: VVho so hath no VVife, and in steede of a VVife hath a Concubine, let him not be remoued from the Communion. In these woordes, I trowe, ye wil saie, there is no erroure.