A04468:4397
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.
And therefore Socrates in his story saith, Imperatores unà complexi sumus, &c. We have also herein comprised the Emperors Lives, for that, sithence the Emperors were first Christened, the affairs of the Church have hanged of them, and the greatest Councils both have been, and are kept by their advise.
And therefore Socrates in his storie saithe, Imperatores vnà complexi sumus, &c. Wee haue also herein comprised the Emperours Liues, for that, sithence the Emperours were first Christened, the affaires of the Churche haue hanged of them, and the greatest Councelles bothe haue benne, and are keapte by theire aduise.
Ye say, The Prince in doubtful Cases was commanded to take Counsel of the Highest Priest. This is true. But will ye conclude hereof, that the Highest Priest may say, & do, what he listeth, without controlment? What if the High Priest would answer thus, as he answered sometime in deed, This Christ is a Samaritan, a deceiver of the people, and hath a Devil? What if he tear his own robes for anger, and cry out, He Blasphemeth: he is worthy to die? Yet must the Emperor needs give ear unto him, and believe him without exception? Certainly, in the Old Law, if the Bishop either had been negligent in his Office, or of malice, or ignorance had answered untruth, he was evermore under the General controlment of the Prince.
Yee saie, The Prince in doubteful Cases was commaunded to take Counsel of the Highest Prieste. This is true. But wil yée conclude hereof, that the Highest Prieste maie saie, & doo, what he listeth, without controlmente? What if the Highe Prieste woulde answeare thus, as he answeared sommetime in déede, This Christe is a Samaritane, a deceiuer of the people, and hath a Diuel? What if he teare his owne roabes for anger, and crie oute, He Blasphemeth: he is vvoorthy to die? Yet muste the Emperoure néedes geue eare vnto him, and beleeue him without exception? Certainely, in the Olde Lavve, if the Bishop either had benne negligente in his Office, or of malice, or ignorance had answeared vntruthe, he was euermore vnder the General controlmente of the Prince.