A04474:904
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 2 › The B. of Salisbury.Article 2 › 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.
These be the two Councils that M. Harding would have to weigh so deeply in a Catholic mans conscience. Neither can it justly be replied, that any of these were Lutherans. For the Dominic Friars were a hundred years before Luther ever preached: And Albertus Pigghius wrote namely and of purpose against Luther. Verily these Councils seem over light, to weigh down all the old Councils of grave and Catholic Fathers, that were before them. Touching the authority of Councils, because they seem oftentimes to vary, Gelasius thought it best to take up the matter thus:1 In gestis Conciliorum, quotiescunque discors sententia inuenitur, illius Concilij sententia magis teneatur, cuius antiquior, & potior extat authoritas. When so ever contrariety in sentence is found in the Acts of Councils, let the sentence of that Council be taken, that hath the elder, and better authority. It this determination of Gelasius be good, there is no cause why these two so late Councils should weigh down any Catholic mans conscience, specially against so many contrary Councils as have been before. Doubtless it is a marvellous case, that either of these two Councils, should at last see that thing in the words of S. Luke, that the Council of the Apostles could not see.
These be the twoo Councels that M. Hardinge woulde haue to weigh so déepely in a Catholike mans conscience. Neither can it iustly be replied, that any of these were Lutherans. For the Dominike Fréers were a hundred yeres before Luther euer preached: And Albertus Pigghius wrote namely and of purpose against Luther. Uerily these Councels seeme ouer light, to weigh downe al the olde Councels of graue and Catholike Fathers, that were before them. Touching the authoritie of Councels, bicause they séeme oftētimes to vary, Gelasius thought it best to take vp the mater thus:1 In gestis Conciliorum, quotiescunque discors sententia inuenitur, illius Concilij sententia magis teneatur, cuius antiquior, & potior extat authoritas. When so euer contrarietie in sentence is founde in the Actes of Councels, let the sentence of that Councel be taken, that hath the elder, and better authoritie. It this determination of Gelasius be good, there is no cause why these twoo so late Councels should weigh downe any Catholike mans conscience, specially against so many contrary Councels as haue beene before. Doubtlesse it is a maruelous case, that either of these twoo Councels, should at last sée that thing in the woordes of S. Luke, that the Councel of the Apostles coulde not see.