A15857:932
H. Zanchius his confession of Christian religion Which now at length being 70. years…H. Zanchius his confession of Christian religion Which novve at length being 70. yeares…
H. Zanchius his confession of Christian religion Which now at length being 70. years of age, he caused to be published in the name of himself & his family. Englished in sense agreeable, and in words as answerable to his own latin copy, as in so grave a mans work is requisite: for the profit of all the unlearneder sort, of English christians, that desire to know his judgement in matters of faith.H. Zanchius his confession of Christian religion Which novve at length being 70. yeares of age, he caused to bee published in the name of himselfe & his family. Englished in sense agreeable, and in words as answerable to his ovvne latine copie, as in so graue a mans worke is requisite: for the profite of all the vnlearneder sort, of English christians, that desire to know his iudgement in matters of faith.
Cambridge: printed by John Legat, 1599Cambridge: printed by Iohn Legat, 1599
Title page typeset from the transcription.
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.
Aphorism 21.
Aphorisme 21.
These be two questions far different: whether bishops may also be princes, and princes bishops, keeping also their principalities in their hands: and, whether they which are both bishops and princes, besides their ecclesiastical ⟨p. 349⟩authority, may also have civill power over those that are their subjects, and so, whether their subjects must obey them as princes, or not. In my Aphorism, I spake not one word, of the former question, for it was not needful, but only of the latter. Now who seeth not, how I showed by apparent demonstrations, that princes must be wholly obeyed, howsoever, rightfully or wrongfully, they be made princes? For why should not they that are subjects both to the princes and Archbishops of Colon, Mentz, and Trevers, in matters that are not repugnant to christian piety, be obedient unto them? Surely it were mere sedition in them not to obey them. And if to these: why should not they also, which are within the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, in the same matters & for the same cause obey him? For there is one and the same reason of them all.
These be two questions farre differēt: whether bishops may also be princes, and princes bishopps, keeping also their principalities in their hands: and, whether they which are both bishops and princes, besids their ecclesiastical ⟨p. 349⟩authoritie, may also haue ciuill power ouer those that are their subiects, and so, whether their subiects must obey them as princes, or not. In my Aphorisme, I spake not one word, of the former question, for it was not needful, but onely of the latter. Now who seeth not, how I shewed by apparent demonstrations, that princes must be wholly obeyed, howsoeuer, rightfullie or wrongfullie, they bee made princes? For why should not they that are subiects both to the princes and Archbishops of Colone, Mentz, and Treuers, in matters that are not repugnant to christian pietie, be obedient vnto them? Surely it were meere sedition in them not to obey them. And if to these: why should not they also, which are within the iurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, in the same matters & for the same cause obey him? For there is one and the same reason of them all.