An apology, or answer in defence of the Church of England concerning the state…An apologie, or aunswer in defence of the Church of England concerninge the state…

It is no marvel though these men despise us and all that we do or say, which make so little account of God him self, and of his most holy word. Yet was it but a foolish devise of them, in seeking to hurt us, to commit so heinous an injury against the word of God. But Hosius will cry out, we do him injury, and that these be not his, but Zuinkfeldius words. But what if Zuenkfeldius also cry, that they be not his, but Hosius words? For where did Zuinkfelde ever write them: or if he did write them and Nosius judged them to be wicked, why did he not at the least speak one word to confute them, how so ever the matter go? Although peradventure Hosius will not allow the words, yet he doth not disallow the meaning. For in all controversies almost, and namely touching the use of the ⟨p. 39⟩holy communion under both kinds, although Christs words be most plain, yet he contemptuously rejecteth them as cold and dead elements, and would have us believe certain new devises prescribed by the Church, and certain revelations, I know not what, of the holy ghost. And Albert Pighius sayeth: we ought not to believe the words of the scripture, although they were most manifest, unless the same be allowed by the interpretation and authority of the Church.

It is no meruaile thoe these men despise vs and all that we doe or say, whiche make so litle accounte of God him self, and of his moste holy worde. Yet was it but a folish deuise of them, in seking to hurte vs, to commit so haynous an iniurie agaynst the worde of God. But Hosius will crie out, we doe him iniurie, and that these be not his, but Zuinkfeldius wordes. But what if Zuenkfeldius also crie, that they be not his, but Hosius wordes? For wher did Zuinkfelde euer write thē: or if he did write them and Nosius iudged them to be wicked, why did he not at ye least speake one worde to cōfute them, how so euer the matter goe? Althoe peraduēture Hosius wil not allow the wordes, yet he dothe not disallow the meanyng. For in all controuersies almost, and namely touchyng the vse of the ⟨p. 39⟩holy cōmunion vnder bothe kindes, although Christes wordes be most plaine, yet he cōtemptuously reiecteth them as colde and dead elementes, and woulde haue vs beleue certain newe deuises prescribed by the Church, and certain reuelations, I know not what, of the holy ghost. And Albert Pighius saieth: we ought not to beleue the wordes of the scripture, althoe thei were moste manifest, vnlesse the same be allowed by the interpretation and authoritie of the Churche.