A04468:4440
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 of the Popes omnipotent consent, without which, ye tell us, no Emperor may summon a Council, there is no man that maketh mention.
But of the Popes omnipotente consente, without which, yée telle vs, no Emperoure maie summone a Councel, there is noman that maketh mention.
Ye say, There ought no Council to be kept without the determinate consent of the Bishop of Rome. This also is an other of your Untruths, standing in the manifest corruption of the words of Socrates: as in my Former Reply I have declared more at large.1 The words of Socrates be these, Non licet scribere Ecclesiastica Decreta praeter sententiam Episcopi Romani: It is provided, that Ecclesiastical Laws be not made without the consent of the Bishop of Rome: For that the Bishop of Rome was one of the Four Great Patriarchs, whose assents in all General Councils were thought necessary. But Socrates meaneth such Ecclesiastical Laws, as pertain to the whole Church of God. For this is a Rule agreeable to reason, That toucheth all, must be allowed by all.
Yee saie, There ought no Councel to be keapte without the determinate consente of the Bishop of Rome. This also is an other of your Vntruthes, standing in the manifeste corruption of the wordes of Socrates: as in my Former Replie I haue declared more at large.1 The woordes of Socrates be these, Non licet scribere Ecclesiastica Decreta praeter sententiam Episcopi Romani: It is prouided, that Ecclesiastical Lavves be not made without the consente of the Bishop of Rome: For that the Bishop of Rome was one of the Foure Greate Patriarkes, whoes assentes in al General Councelles were thought necessarie. But Socrates meaneth sutche Ecclesiastical Lavves, as perteine to the whole Churche of God. For this is a Rule agréeable to reason, That toucheth al, muste be allovved by al.
- 1