A04474:3938
A reply unto M. Hardinges answerA replie vnto M. Hardinges ansvveare
A reply unto M. Hardinges answer by perusing whereof the discrete, and diligent reader may easily see, the weak, and unstable grounds of the Romaine religion, which of late hath been accounted Catholic. By John Jewel Bishop of Salisbury.A replie vnto M. Hardinges ansvveare by perusinge whereof the discrete, and diligent reader may easily see, the weake, and vnstable groundes of the Romaine religion, whiche of late hath beene accompted Catholique. By Iohn Iewel Bishoppe of Sarisburie.
Imprinted at London : In Fleetestreate, at the sign of the Black Oliphant, by Henry Wykes, Anno. 1565Imprinted at London : In Fleetestreate, at the signe of the Blacke Oliphante, by Henry VVykes, Anno. 1565
Article 24 › The B. of Salisbury.Article 24 › The B. of Sarisburie.
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.
He would seem, not to know, who they be, that would force us to this fancy of his Individuum Vagum. And therefore he saith, If their meaning be naught, handle them as ye list. How be it, he cannot be so ignorant herein, as he would seem to be. For although perhaps he be not much acquainted with the Doctrine, yet he cannot choose,1 but know the Doctor. Him I mean, of whom he hath borrowed good store of matter, sometimes a whole leaf, and more together, towards the building of his book.
He woulde seeme, not to knowe, who they be, that woulde force vs to this fansie of his Indiuiduum Vagum. And therefore he saith, Yf their meaninge be naught, handle them as ye list. How be it, he cannot be so ignorant herein, as he woulde seeme to be. For although perhaps he be not muche acquainted with the Doctrine, yet he cannot choose,1 but knowe the Doctoure. Him I meane, of whom he hath borrowed good stoare of mater, sometimes a whole leafe, and more togeather, towardes the buildinge of his booke.
- 1•. Ste. Gardi•er.
He, notwithstanding he were once persuaded, that Christ by this pronoun, Hoc, made demonstratiō of the Bread, yet afterward thought all that not worth a point, but utterly changed his whole mind, and thought it better to say, that Christ by the same pronoun,1 Hoc, pointed not the Bread, that he held in his hand, but only Individuum Vagum. And that, for the better understanding of his Reader, he calleth, Individuum in Genere, Individuum Entis, Unum Substantiae, Unum Entis, Individuum Insignitum, Individuū Individui. This fancy he so warranteth, and forceth everywhere, as if Christs Words could bear none other exposition.