A04468:961
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.
You say, Sir Defender hath falsely alleged the Council of Carthage. And why so? For that he saith, The Council Decreed by express words, that the Bishop of Rome should not be called the Universal Bishop. This, you say, is Forged, and Falsified, and is no part of that Council. For indifferent trial both of the Truth, and of the Falsehood herein, I beseech you, behold the very words of ⟨p. 121⟩the Council,1 even as they are alleged by your own Doctor Gratian. These they are: Primae Sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps Sacerdotum, vel Summus Sacerdos, vel aliquid huiusmodi: Sed tantùm, Primae Sedis Episcopus. Universalis autem nec etiam Romanus Pontifex appelletur: Let not the Bishop of any of the First Sees be called the Prince of Priests, Or the Highest Priest, or by any other like name: but Only, the Bishop of the First see. But let not the Bishop of Rome him self be called the Universal Bishop. And in the Gloss thereupon it is noted thus, In hac Distinctione dicitur, quod Papa non debet dici Universalis: In this Distinction it is said, that the Pope ought not to be called the Universal Bishop.
You saye, Sir Defender hathe falsely alleged the Councel of Carthage. And why so? For that he saithe, The Councel Decréed by expresse woordes, that the Bishop of Rome should not be called the Vniuersal Bishop. This, you saie, is Forged, and Falsified, and is no parte of that Councel. For indifferent trial bothe of the Truthe, and of the Falsehed herein, I beseche you, beholde the very woordes of ⟨p. 121⟩the Councel,1 euen as thei are alleged by your own Doctour Gratiā. These thei are: Primae Sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps Sacerdotum, vel Summus Sacerdos, vel aliquid huiusmodi: Sed tantùm, Primae Sedis Episcopus. Vniuersalis autem nec etiam Romanus Pontifex appelletur: Let not the Bishop of any of the Firste Sees be called the Prince of Priestes, Or the Highest Prieste, or by any other like name: but Onely, the Bishop of the Firste see. But let not the Bishop of Rome him selfe be called the Vniuersal Bishop. And in ye Glose thereupon it is noted thus, In hac Distinctione dicitur, quod Papa non debet dici Vniuersalis: In this Distinction it is saide, that the Pope ought not to be called the Vniuersal Bishop.