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…

Hitherto we have showed that the words alleged in the Apology under the name of Hosius, make neither against him, nor against us, as not being his words, nor ours, but only the words of Zwenkfeldius. Well, what credit may we give to this man in expounding the Word of God, (whose true meaning he may falsify at his pleasure, because we can not bring forth God him self to declare his words) seeing he dareth to burden Hosius with these words, which Hosius him self being yet alive can declare to have another meaning, as the Book it self doth witness to all that list to read the same. This was a great fault, to impure so horrible an Heresy to Hosius unjustly. This was a great ignorance, to charge him with that Heresy, which he refuteth and impugneth. They are great crimes, and yet such, as might ri•e of misreport and ignorance. But when he was told of them, he should of reason have corrected them. He should have repented with Peter, and not despaired with Cain and Judas.

Hitherto we haue shewed that the woordes alleaged in the Apologie vnder the name of Hosius, make neither againste him, nor against vs, as not beinge his woordes, nor ours, but onely the woordes of Zwenkfeldius. VVell, what credite maie we geue to this man in expoundinge the VVoorde of God, (whose true meaninge he maie falsisie at his pleasure, because we can not bringe foorthe God him selfe to declare his woordes) seeinge he dareth to burthen Hosius with these woordes, whiche Hosius him selfe beinge yet aliue can declare to haue another meaninge, as the Booke it selfe doothe witnesse to all that liste to reade the same. This was a greate faulte, to impure so horrible an Heresie to Hosius vniustly. This was a greate ignorance, to charge him with that Heresie, whiche he refuteth and impugneth. They are greate crimes, and yet suche, as might ri•e of misreporte and ignorance. But when he was tolde of them, he shoulde of reason haue corrected them. He should haue repented with Peter, and not despaired with Cain and Iudas.

But what did he, when he understood he had erred? He addeth a Gloss far more malicious then the former error was. For, granting that Hosius setteth out the matter so, as though neither he, nor any of his side, but the Heretics Zwenkfeldians spake so, this not withstanding he burdeneth both him and the Catholics with it, saying, that he dissembleth, and hideth what he is. Sir, was this the way to amend your fault, to grant that Hosius spake against the Zwenkfeldians, and yet to bear men in hand, he favoured them? If he had favoured their Heresy, what needed he to refel it? But how say you, that Hosius dissembleth and hideth what he is sith that even here in two places in most plain words, you lay the Zwenkfeldian Heresy to his charge? Read your own Book. Before the allegation of Zwenkfeldius Heresy, say you not thus? We, saith he, will bid away, &c. And after the allegation, have you not these words, This is Hosius saying? How standeth all this together? You have forgotten the Proverb, that biddeth a liar to be mindful. I can not tell how to name this kind of your dealing, lying, or detraction, slandering, or malicious speaking. But Sir, if Hosius have spoken evil, why give you not witness against him of evil? If he have spoken well, even by your own confession in reputing the Zwenkfeldians for Heretics, why find you fault with him for his good words, such I say, as your self confess to be good? You reprove him, who speaketh not against Zwenkfeldius: and again you grant he speaketh against him: and yet because you had once reproved him, you will continue we in it without reason, learning, or wit. But it must needs so be: for without pertinacie no man is either a perfect Heretic, or a perfect slanderer.