Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Answer

Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation · Answer

THE Aunswere of Thomas Archebishop of Caunterbury &c. agaynst the false calumniations of doctour Richard Smith, who hath taken vponupon him to confute the defence of the true & catholik doctrine of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ.

I HaueHave now obtayned (gentle reader) that thing, which I hauehave much desired, which was, that if all men would not imbrace the truth lately set forth by me, concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ, at the least some man would vouchsafe to take penne in hand, and write against my booke, bicause that therby the truth might both better be serched out and also more certaynly knowen to the world. And herein I hartely thanke the late Bishop of Winchester and doctor Smith, who partely hauehave satisfied my long desire, sauing that I would hauehave wished aduersaries more substantially learned in holy scriptures, more exercised in the olde auncient ecclesiasticall authors, and hauing a more godly zeale to the triall out of the truth, than are these two, both being crafty sophisters (the one by art, and the other by nature) both also being drowned in the dregges of papistry, brought vp and confirmed in the same, the one by Duns and Dorbell, and such like Sophisters, the other by the Popish Canon law, wherof by his degree taken in the uniuersity he is a professor. And as concerning the late bishop of Winchester, I will declare his craftye Sophistications in myne aunswere vntounto his booke.

But doctour Smith (as it appeareth by the title of his preface) hath craftely deuised an easy way to obtayne his purpose, that the people being barred from the serching of the truth, might be stil kept in blindnes and errour, as wel in this as in al other matters, wherin they hauehave bene in times past deceaued.

He seeth full well that the more diligently,Falshood feareth the light, but light desireth to be tryed. matters be serched out and discussed, the more clearly the craft and falsehode of the subtill Papistes will appeare. And therfore in the preface to the reader, he exhorteth all men to leaue disputing and resoning of the fame by learning, and to giuegive firme credite vntounto the church, as the title of the sayd preface declareth manifestly. As who should say, the truth of any matter that is in question, might be tryed out, without debating and reasoning by the word of God, wherby (as by the true touchstone) all mens doctrines are to be tryed and examined. But the truth is not ashamed to come to the light, and to be tryed to the vttermost. For as pure golde, the more it is tryed, the more pure it apeareth, so is all manner of truth. Where as on the other side all maskers, counterfayters, and false deceiuors abhorre the light, and refuse the triall. If all men without right or reason would geue credite vntounto this Papist and his Romish church, agaynst the most certayne word of God and the olde holye and Catholicke Churche of Christ, the matter should be soone at an end, and out of all controuersie. But for as muche as the pure word of God, and the first church of Christ from the beginning, p. 396taught the true catholike fayth, and Smith with his church of Rome do now teach the cleane contrary, the chaffe can not be tryed out from the pure corne (that is to say, the vntruth discerned from the very truth) without threshing, windowing, and fanning, serching, debating and reasoning.

Fayth ought to be grounded vp on Gods word, but the Papists ground their faith vponupon them selues.As for me I ground my beleefe vponupon gods word (wherin can be no errour) hauing also the consent of the primatiue church, requiring no man to beleue me further, then I hane gods word for me. But these Papistes speake at their pleasure what they lift, and would be beleeued without godes word, bicause they beare men in hand, that they be the church. The church of Christ is not founded vponupon it selfe, but vppon Christ and his word, but the Papistes build their church vponupon them selues, deuising new articles of the fayth from tyme to tyme, without any scripture, and founding the same vponupon the Pope and his cleargy, monkes and fryers, and by that meanes they be both the makers and Iudges of their fayth themselues. Wherfore this Papist like a politike man, doth right wisely prouide for himselfe and his church, in the first entry of his booke, that all men should leaue searching for the truth, and sticke hard and fast to the church, meaning himselfe and the church of Rome. For from the true catholike church, the Romish church (which he accomteth catholike) hath varied and dissented many yeares passed, as the blindest that this day do liue, may well see and perceaue, if they will not purposely winke and shut vp their eyes. This I hauehave written to answere the title of his preface.

Ephesine coū cell.NOw in the beginning of the very preface it selfe, when this great doctor should recite the wordes of Ephesine counsell he translateth them so vnlearnedly,Cyrill the author of y^e words in the counsell. that if a young boy (that had gone to the grammer schole but thre yeres) had done no better, he should scant hauehave escaped some scholemasters handes with sixierkes. And beside that, he doth it so craftily to serue his purpose, that he cannot be excused of wilfull deprauation of the wordes, calling celebration an offering, and referring the participle (made) to Christ, which should be referred to the word (partakers) and leauing out those wordes that should declare, that the sayd counsell spake of no propiciatory sacrifice in the Masse, but of a sacrifice of laud and thankes, which christen people geue vntounto God at the holy communion, by remembrance of the death resurrection and ascention of his sonne Iesu Christ, and by confessing and setting forth of the same.

Heare by the vngodly handeling of this godly councell at his first beginning, it may appeare to eueryevery man, how sincerely this Papist entendeth to proceede in the rest of this matter.

Smith beleueth the counsell.And with like sinceritie he vntruly belieth the sayd counsell, saying that it doth playnly set forth the holy sacrifice of the Masse, wich doth not so much as once name the Masse, but speaketh of the sacrifice of the church, which the sayd councell declareth to be the profession of christen people in setting forth the benefite of Christ, who onelyonly made the true sacrifice pro, piciatory for remission of sinne. And whosoeuer else taketh vponupon him to make any such sacrifice, maketh himselfe Antichrist.

Smith belieth me twise in one place.And than he belyeth me in two thinges, as he vseth commonly throughout his whole booke. The one is, that I deny the sacrifice of the Masse,The first lye. which in my booke hauehave most playnly set out y^e sacrifice of christen people p. 397in the holy communion or masse (if D. Smith will needes so terme it) and yet I hauehave denyed that it is a sacrifice propitiatory for sinne, or that the priest alone maketh any sacrifice there. For it is the sacrifice of all christen people to remember Christes death, to laude and thanke him for it, and to publish it and shew it abroad vntounto other, to his honor and glory.

The controuersy is not, whether in the holy communion be made a sacrifice or not (for herein both D. Smith and I agree with the foresayd councell at Ephesus) but whether it be a propitiatory sacrifice or not, and whether onelyonly the priest make the sayd sacrifice, these be the poyntes wherin we vary. And I say so far as the councell sayth, that there is a sacrifice, but that the same is propitiatory for remission of sinne, or that the priest alone doth offer it, neyther I nor the counsell do so say, but D. Smith hath added that of his owne vayne head.

The other thing wherin D. Smith belyeth me is this:The second ly. He sayth that I deny, that we receaue in the sacrament that flesh which is adioyned to Gods owne sonne. I meruaile not a little what eyes Doctor Smith had, when he red ouer my booke. It is like that he hath some priuy spectacles within his head, wherwith when soeuer he loketh, he seeth but what he list. For in my booke I hauehave written in moe then an hundred places, that we receaue the selfe same body of Christ that was borne of the virgine Mary, that was crucified and buried, that rose agayne, ascended into heauen, and sitteth at the right hand of God the father almighty. And the contention is onelyonly in the manner and forme how we receaue it.

For I say (as all the olde holy Fathers and Martirs vsed to say) that we receaue Christ spiritually by fayth with our myndes, eating his flesh and drincking his bloud: so that we receaue Christes owne very naturall body but not naturally nor corporally. But this lying papist sayth, that we eate his naturall body corporally with our mouthes, which neyther the counsell Ephesine, nor any other auncient councell or doctor euer sayd or thought.

And the controuersy in the councell Ephesine, was not of the vniting of Christes flesh to the formes of bread and wine in the sacrament, but of the vniting of his flesh to his diuinity at his incarnation in vnity of person. Which thing Nestorius the heretike denyed, confessing that Christ was a godly man as other were, but not that he was very God in nature: which heresy, that holy counsell confuting, affirmeth that the flesh of Christ was so ioyned in person, to the dyuine nature, that it was made the proper flesh of the sonne of God, and flesh that gaue life: but that the sayd flesh was present in the sacramēt corporally, and eaten with our mouthes, no mention is made therof in that councell.

And here I require D. Smith (as proctor for the Papists) eyther to bring forth some auncient councell or doctor, that sayth as he sayth, that Christs own naturall body is eaten corporally with our mouthes (vnderstanding the very body in deed, and not the signes of the body as Chrisostome doth or els let him confesse that my saying is true, and recant his false doctrine the third tyme, as he hath done twise already.

THan forth goeth this Papist with his preface, and sayth,Smith sayth that Christ called not bread his body. that these wordes (This is my body that shall be giuen to death for you) no man can truely vnderstand of bread. And his profe therof is this, bicause that p. 398bread was not crucified for vsus.Luke. 12.Luke 12 First here he maketh a lye of Christ. For Christ said not (as this papist alleadgeth.) This is my body, which shalbe giuen to death for you, but onelyonly he sayth: This is my body which is giuen for you, which wordes some vnderstand not of the giuing of the body of Christ to death, but of the breaking and giuing of bread to his apostles as S. Paule sayd:1. Cor. 10.1 Cor 10 The bread which we breake. &c.

But let it be that he spake of the geuing of his body to death, and said of the bread, This is my body, which shal be geuen to death for you, by what reason can you gather hereof, that the bread was crucified for vsus?

If I looke vponupon the image of kinge Dauid, and say: This is he that killed Goliath, doth this speach mean, that the image of King Dauid killed Goliath? Or if I hold in my hand my booke of S. Iohns gospell, and say: This is the gospell that S. Iohn wrote at Pathmos (which fashion of speach is commonly vsed) doth it folow hereof that my booke was written at Pathmos? Or that S. Iohn wrote my booke which was but newly printed at Paris by Robert Stephanus? Or if I say of my booke of S. Paules epistles. This is Paule that was the great persecuter of Christ: Doth this manner of speach signify, that my booke doth persecute Christ? Or if I shew a booke of the new testament, saying: This is the new testament, which brought life vntounto the world, by what forme of argument can you induce hereof, that my booke y^t I bought but yesterday, brought life vntounto the world? No man that vseth thus to speake doth meane of the bookes, but of the very thinges themselues, that in the bookes be taught and contayned. And after the same wise, if Christ called bread his body, saying: This is my body, which shall be giuen to death for you, yet he ment not, that the bread should be giuen to death for vsus, but his body which by the bread was signified.

If this excellent clarke and doctor vnderstand not these maner of speaches (that be so playne) then hath he doth lost his sences, and forgotten his gramer which teacheth to referre the relatiue to the next antecedent. But of these figuratiue speaches, I hauehave spokē at large in my third booke. First in the viii. chap. prouing by authority of the oldest authors in Christs church, that he called bread his body and wine his bloud. And agayne in the ix. x. xi. and xii. chapters, I hauehave so fully intreated of such figuratiue speaches, that it should be but a superfluous labour here to speake of any more: but I referre the reader to those places.

And if M. doctor require a further answere herein, let him looke vponupon the late bishop of Winchesters booke, called the detection of the diuels sophistry, where he writeth plainly, that when Christ spake these wordes, This is my body, he made demonstration of the bread.

Setting of the cart before the Horses.THan further in this prologue this Papist is not ashamed to say, that I set the cart before the horses, putting reason first, and fayth after: which lye is so manifest, that it needeth no further proofe, but onelyonly to looke vponupon my booke, wherein it shall euidently appeare, that in all my fiue bookes I ground my foūdation vponupon gods word. And least the Papistes should say, that I make the expositions of the scripture my selfe (as they commonly vse to do) I hauehave fortified my foundation by the authority of all the best learned and most holy authors and martyrs, that were in the beginning of the church and many yeares after, vntill the Antichrist of Rome p. 399rose vp and corrupted altogither.

And as for naturall reason, I make no mention therof in all my v. bookes but in one place onelyonly, which is in my second booke speaking of Transubstantiation. And in that place I set not reason before fayth, but (as an handmayden) hauehave appoynted her to do seruice vntounto fayth, and to wayte vponupon her. And in that place she hath done such seruice, that D. Smith durst not once looke her in the face, nor find any fault with her seruice, but hath flylye and craftely stolen away by her, as though he saw her not.

But in his owne booke he hath so impudently set the cart before the horses in Christes owne wordes, putting the wordes behind that goe before, & the wordes before that goe behind, that (except a shameles Papist) no man durst be so bolde to attempt any such thing of his owne head. For where the Euangelist and S. Paule rehearse Christes wordes thus: Take, eate, this is my body:Math. 26. 1. Cor. 11.Matt 261 Cor 11 he in the confutation of my second booke turneth the order vpside downe, and sayth, This is my body, take & eate.

After this in his Preface hee rehearseth a great number of the wonderfull workes of God,Of the wōderfull workes of God. as that God made all the world of nought, that he made Adam of the earth and Eue of his side, the bush to flame with fire and burne not, and many other like, which be most manifestly expressed in holy scripture. And vponupon these he concludeth most vainly and vntruly, that thing which in the scripture is neyther expressed nor vnderstanded, that Christ is corporally in heauen and in earth, and in eueryevery place where the sacrament is.

And yet D. Smith sayth, that Gods word doth teach this as playnly as the other: vsing herein such a kind of sophisticall argumēt, as all Logitiās do reprehend, which is called petitio principij, whē a mā taketh y^t thing for a supposition and an approued truth, which is in controuersy. And so doth he in this place when he sayth: Doth not Gods word teach it thee as playnly as the other? Here by this interrogatory he required that thing to be graunted him as a truth, which he ought to proue, and whereupon dependeth the whole matter that is in questiō, that is to say, whether it be as playnly set out in the scripture, that Christes body is corporally in eueryevery place where the sacrament is, as that God created all thinges of nothing, Adam of the earth, and Eue of Adams side &c. This is it that I deny and that he should proue. But he taketh it for a supposition, saying by interrogation, doth not the word of God teach this as playnly as the other? Which I affirme to be vtterly false as I hauehave shewed in my third boobe, the xi. and twelfe chap. where I hauehave most manifestly proued, as well by Gods word as by aūcient authors, that these wordes of Christ, This is my body, and, This is my bloud, be no playne speaches, but figuratiue.

THen forth goeth this papist vntounto the vi. chap. of S. Thou saying, Christ promised his disciples, to geue them such bread as should be his owne very naturall flesh,Iohn. 6.John 6 which he would geue to death for the life of the world. Can this his promise (sayth M. Smith) be verified of common bread? Was that giuen vponupon the crosse for the life of the world?

Wherto I answer by his owne reason. Can this his promise be verified of sacramentall bread? was that geuen vponupon the crosse for the life of p. 400the world? I meruayle here not a little of M. Smithes eyther dulnes or maliciousnes, that cannot or will not see, that Christ in this chap. of S. Ihon spake not of Sacramentall bread, but of heauenly bread: nor of his flesh onelyonly, but also of his bloud and of his godhead, calling them heauenly bread that giueth euerlasting life. So that he spake of him selfe wholy, saying: I am the bread of life. He that cōmeth to me, shall not hunger: and he that beleueth in me, shall not thirst for euer. And neyther spake he of common bread, nor yet of sacramentall bread. For neyther of them was giuen vponupon the crosse for the life of the world.

And there can be nothing more manifest then that in this vi. chap. of Ihon Christ spake not of the sacrament of his flesh, but of his very flesh. And that aswell for that the sacrament was not then instituted, as also that Christ sayd not in the future tense the bread which I will giuegive, shalbe my flesh, but in the present tense, the bread which I will geue, is my flesh, which sacramentall bread was neyther then his flesh, nor was then instituted for a Sacrament, nor was after giuen to death for the life of the world.

But as Christ, when he sayd vntounto the woman of Samaria. The water which I will geue,Iohn. 4.John 4 shall spring into euerlasting life he ment neyther of materiall water, nor of the accidents of water, but of the holy ghost, which is the heauenly fountayne, that springeth vntounto eternall life: so likewise when he sayd: The bread which I will geue, is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world, he ment neyther of the materiall bread, neither of the accidents of bread,Iohn. 6.John 6 but of his owne flesh. Which although of it selfe it auayleth nothing, yet (being in vnity of persō ioyned vntounto his diuinity) it is the same heauenly bread that he gaue to death vponupon the crosse for the life of the world.

But here M. Smith asketh a question of the tyme, saying thus: When gaue Christ that bread which was his very flesh that he gaue for vsus to death, if he did it not at his last supper, when he sayd: This is my body, that shalbe giuen for you.

I answer (according to Cirils mynd vponupon the same place) that Christ alone suffered for vsus all, and by his woundes were we healed, he bearing our sinnes in his body vponupon a tree, and being crucified for vsus, that by his death we might liue.

But what need I, M. Smith, to labor in answering to your question of the tyme, when your question in it selfe contayneth the aunswere, & appoynteth the tyme of Christ giuing himselfe for the life of the world, when you say, that he gaue himselfe for vsus to death, which (as you confes skant three lines before) was not at his supper, but vponupon the crosse.

And if you will hauehave none other giuing of Christ for vsus, but at his supper (as your reason pretendeth or els it is vtterly naught) then surely Christ is much bound vntounto you, that hauehave deliuered him from all his mocking, whipping, scourging, crucifying, and all other paynes of death which he suffered for vsus vponupon the crosse, and bring to passe that he was giuen onelyonly at his supper without bloud or payne, for the life of the world. But then is all the world litle beholding vntounto you, that by deliuering of Christ from death, will suffer all the world to remayne in death, which can hauehave no life, but by his death.

p. 401AFter the gospell of S. Ihon, M. Smith aleadgeth for his purpose S. Paule to the corinthians,The place of S. Paule. 1. Cor. 11.1 Cor 11 who biddeth eueryevery man to examine him selfe, before he receaue this sacrament, for he that eateth and drinketh it vnworthely, is gilty of the body and bloud of Christ, eating and drinking his owne damnation, bicause he discerneth not our lordes body.

Here by the way it is to be noted, that D. Smith in reciting the words of S. Paule, doth alter them purposely, commonly putting this word sacrament, in the steede of these wordes, bread and wine (which wordes he semeth so much to abhorre, as if they were toades or serpents, bicause they make agaynst his Transubstantiation) where as S. Paule euer vseth those wordes, and neuer nameth this word, Sacrament.

But to the matter: What need we to examine our selues (sayth D. Smith) when we shall eate but common bread and drincke wine of the grape? Is a man gilty of the body and bloud of Christ which eateth and drinketh nothing els, but onelyonly bare bread made of corne, and meare wine of the grape? Who sayth so good syr? Do I say in my booke, that those which come to the Lordes table, do eate nothing els, but bare bread made of corne, nor drinke nothing but meare wine, made of grapes? How often do I teach and repeate agayne and agayne, that as corporally with our mouthes we eate and drincke the sacramentall bread and wine, so spiritually with our hartes, by fayth, do we eate Christes very flesh, and drincke his very bloud, and do both feed and liue spiritually by him, although corporally he be absent from vsus, and sitteth in heauē at his fathers right hand. And as in baptisme we come not vntounto the water as we come to other common waters, when we washe our handes, or bath our bodies, but we know that it is a misticall water, admonishing vsus of the great and manifold mercies of God towards vsus, of the league and promise made betwene him and vsus, and of his wonderfull working and operation in vsus. Wherfore we come to that water with such feare, reuerence and humility, as we would come to the presence of the father, the sonne and the holy ghost, and of Iesus Christ himselfe both God and man: although he be not corporally in the water, but in heauen aboue. And who soeuer cōmeth to that water (beyng of the age of discretiō) must examine himselfe duely, least if hee come vnworthely (none otherwise then hee would come vntounto other commō waters) he be not renewed in Christ: but in steede of saluation receaue his damnation.

Euen so it is of the bread and wine in the Lordes holy supper. Wherfore eueryevery man (as S. Paule sayth) must examine himselfe, when he shall aproche to that holy table, and not come to gods borde, as he would do to common feastes and bankets, but must consider, that it is a misticall table, where the bread is misticall, and the wine also misticall, wherin we be taught that we spiritually feed vponupon Christ, eating him and drincking him, and as it were sucking out of his side the bloud of our redemption & foode of eternall saluation, although he be in heauen at his fathers right hand. And whosoeuer cōmeth vntounto this heauenly table, not hauing regarde to Christes flesh & bloud (who should be there our spirituall foode) but commeth therto without fayth, feare, humility & reuerence (as it were but to carnall feeding) he doth not there feed vponupon Christ, but the deuill doth feede vponupon him, and deuoureth him, as he did Iudas.

p. 402And now may eueryevery man perceaue, how fondly and falsly M. Smith concludeth of these wordes of S. Paule, that our Sauiour Christes body and bloud is really and corporally in the sacrament.

Master Peter Martyr.AFter this he falleth to rayling, lying and sclaundering of M. Peter Martir, a man of that excellent learning and godly liuing, that hee passeth D. Smith as farre, as the sunne in his cleare light passeth the moone being in the Eclipse.

Peter Martyr (sayth he) at his first coming to Oxford when he was but a Lutherian in this matter, taught as D. Smith now doth. But when he came once to the Court, & saw that doctrine misliked them, that might do him hurt in his liuing, he anone after turned his tippet, and sang an other song.

Of M. Peter Martyr his opinion and iudgement in this matter no man can better testify than I. For as much as hee lodged within my house long before he came to Oxford, and I had with him many conferences in that matter, and know that he was then of the same mynd that he is now, and as hee defended after openly in Oxford, and hath written in his booke. And if D. Smith vnderstode him otherwise in his Lectures at the beginning, it was for lacke of knowledge, for that then D. Smith vnderstoode not the matter, nor yet doth not, as it appeareth by this folish and vnlearned booke which he hath now set out.

No more than he vnderstood my booke of the Cathechisme, and therfore reporteth vntruly of me, that I in that booke did set forth the reall presence of Christes body in the sacrament. Unto which false report I hauehave aunswered in my fourth booke the eight chapiter.

But this I confesse of my selfe, that not long before I wrot the sayd Cathechisme, I was in that error of the real presence, as I was many yeares past in diuers other errors as of Transubstantiation, of the sacrifice propitiatory of the priestes in the Masse, of pilgrimages, purgatory, pardons, and many other superstitions and errors that came from Rome being brought vp from youth in them, and nouseled therin for lacke of good instruction from my youth, the outragious fluds of Papisticall errors at that tyme ouerflowing the world. For the which and other mine offences in youth, I do dayly pray vntounto God for mercy and pardon, saying. Delicta inuentutis meae & ignorantias meas, ne memineris Domine. Good Lord remember not mine ignorances and offences of my youth.

But after it had pleased God to shew vntounto me by his holy word a more perfect knowledge of his sonne Iesus Christ, from tyme to tyme as I grew in knowledge of him, by little and little I put away my former ignorance. And as God of his mercy gaue me light, so through his grace I opened myne eyes to receaue it, and did not wilfully repugne vntounto God and remayne in darkenes. And I trust in gods mercy and pardon for my former errors, bicause I erred but of frailnes and ignoraunce. And now I may say of my selfe as S. Paule sayd: When I was like a babe or childe in the knowledge of Christ, I spake like a childe and vnderstood like a child: But now that I come to mans estate and growing in Christ through his grace and mercy,1. Cor. 13.1 Cor 13 I hauehave put away that childishnes.

Now after that D. Smith hath thus vntruely belyed both me and master Peter Martir, he falleth into his exclamations, saying: O Lord p. 403what man is so mad to beleue such mutable teachers, which chaūge their doctrine at mens pleasure, as they see aduauntage and profit? They turne and will turne as the winde turneth.

Do you not remember M. Smith the fable how the olde crab rebuked her young, that they went not straight forth: and the common experience, that those that look a squint, sometimes find fault with them y^t look right? You hauehave turned twise, & retracted your errours, and the third time promised, and breaking your promise ran away. And find you fault with me and M. Peter Martyr, as though we for mens pleasures turne like the winde, as we see aduauntage? Shall the wethercocke of Paules that turneth about with eueryevery wind, lay the fault in the church, & say y^t it turneth?

I will not here aunswere for my selfe, but leaue the iudgement to God (who seeth the bottome of all mens hartes, and at whose onelyonly iudgement I shall stand or fall) sauing that this I will say before God (who is eueryevery where present, and knoweth all thinges that be done) that as for seeking to please men in this matter, I thinke my conscience cleare, that I neuer sought herein but onelyonly the pleasure and glory of God. And yet will I not iudge my selfe herein, nor take D. Smith for my iudge, but will refer the iudgement to him that is the rightfull iudge of all men. But as for D. Peter Martyr, hath hee sought to please men for aduauntage? who hauing a great yearly reuenue in his owne countrey, forsooke all for Christes sake, and for the truth and glory of God came into straunge countries, wher he had neither land nor frendes, but as God of his goodnes (who neuer forsaketh them that put their trust in him) prouided for him.

BUt after this exclamation, this papist returneth to the matter, saying:The Argumēt of the doore and Sepulchre. Tell me, why may not Christes body be as well in the sacrament & in heauē both at once, as that his body was in one proper place, with y^e bodye of the stone, that lay still vpō his graue, whē he rose from death to life? & as his body was in one proper place at once with y^e body of the doore or gate, whē the same being shut, he entred into the house where y^e Apostles were?

Make you these two thinges all one, M. Smith, diuers bodies to be in one place, and one body to be in diuers places? If Christs body had bene in one place with the substaūce of the stone or doore, and at the same time, thē you might well hauehave proued thereby, that his body may as well be in one place, with the substāce of bread & wine. But what auayleth this to proue, that his body may be in diuers places at one time? which is nothing like to the other, but rather cleane contrary. Marry when Christ arose out of the sepulchre, or came into the house when the dores were shut, if you can proue that at the same time he was in heauen, then were that to some purpose, to proue that this dodye may bee corporally in heauen and earth both at one tyme.

And yet the controuersy here in this matter, is not what may bee, but what is, God can do many thinges, which he neither doth nor will doe. And to vsus his will (in thinges that appear not to our sences) is not known but by his word: Christes body may be aswell in the bread and wine, as in in the dore and stone, and yet it may be also in the dore and stone, and not in the bread and wine.

But if we will stretch out our faith no further thē Gods word doth lead vsus, neither is Christs body corporally present in one proper place with the p. 404bread and wine, nor was also with the stone or doore. For the Scripture sayth in no place,Math. 28.Matt 28 that the body of Christ was in the doore, or in the stone that couered the Sepulchre, but it sayth playnly, that an Aungell came downe from heauen, and remoued away the stone from the Sepulchre, & the womē that came to see the Sepulchre,Mar. 16. Iohn. 20.Mark 16John 20 foūd the stone remoued away. And although the Gospell say, that Christ came into the house when the doore was shut, yet it sayth not that Christes body was within the doore, so that the doore and it occupyed both but one place.

But peraduenture M. Smith will aske me this question. How could Christ come into the house, the doore being shut, except he came through the doore, & that his body must be in y^e doore? To your wise questiō M. Smith I will aunswere by an other question: Could not Christ come aswell into the house whē the doore was shut, as y^e Apostles could go out of prison, the doore beyng shut?Actes. 5.Acts 5 Could not God worke this thyng, except the Apostles must go through the doore, & occuyy the same place that the doore did? Or could not Christ do so much for his own selfe, as he did for his Apostles?

But M. Smith is so blynd in his owne phantasies, that he seeth not how much his owne examples make agaynst him selfe. For if it be lyke in the Sacrament, as it was in the stone and doore, and Christes body was in one propre place, with the body and substaunce of the stone and doore, then must Christes body in the Sacramēt be in one propre place, with the body and substaunce of bread and wine. And so he must then confesse, that there is no Transubstantiation.

The appearyng of Christ in his Ascention.THen from the doore and sepulchre, Doct. Smith commeth to the Reuelations of Peter and Paule, which saw Christ (as he sayth) bodily vponupon earth after his Ascention. Whiche declareth, that although Christ departed hence at the tyme of his Ascention into heauen, and there sitteth at the right hand of his father, yet he may be also here in the blessed Sacrament of the aultar. I am not so ignorant, but I know that Christ appeared to S. Paule, and sayd to him: Saule Saule, why doest thou persecute me?Actes. 13. S. Augustine.Acts 13 But S. Augustin sayth that Christ at his Ascention spake the last wordes, that euer he speake vponupon earth. And yet we finde that Christ speaketh (sayth he) but in heauen and from heauen, and not vponupon earth. For he spake to Paule from aboue, saying: Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me? The head was in heauen, and yet he sayd: why doest thou persecute me? bycause he persecuted his members vponupon earth.

And if this please not Maister Smith, let him blame S. Augustin and not me, for I fayne not this my selfe, but onelyonly alledge S. Augustin.

And as the father spake from heauen, whan he sayd: This is my beloued sonne,Math. 3. &. 17.Matt 3 in whom I am pleased, and also S. Stephen saw Christ sittyng in heauen at his fathers right hand: euen so ment S. Augustin, that S. Paule and all other that hauehave sene and heard Christ speake since his Ascention,Actes. 7.Acts 7 hauehave sene and heard him from heauen.

The Church.NOw when this Papist goyng forward with his woorkes, seeth his building so feeble & weake, that it is not able to stand, he returneth to his chief foūdation, the Church and Councels generall, willyng all men to stay thereupon, & to leaue disputyng & reasonyng. And chiefly he shoareth vp his house with the Councell Lateranence, whereat (sayth he) were xiij. hundred Fathers & xv. But he telleth not that viij. hundred of them were p. 405Monkes, Friers, and Chanons, the Byshop of Romes owne deare deare-lynges, & chief champions, called together in his name & not in Christes. From which broode of vypers & Serpentes, what thyng can be thought to come, but that dyd proceede frō the spirite of their most holy father, that first begat them, that is to say, from the spirite of Antichrist.

And yet I know this to bee true, that Christ is present with his holy Churche (whiche is his holy elected people) and shall be with them to the worldes end, leadyng & gouernyng them with his holy spirite, & teachyng them all truth necessary for their saluation. And when so euer any such be gathered together in his name, there is he among them, & he shall not suffer the gates of hell to preuaile agaynst them. For although he may suffer them by their owne frailenes for a tyme to erre, fall, and to dye, yet finally, neither sathan, hell, sinne, nor eternall death, shall preuaile agaynst them.

But it is not so of the Church and sea of Rome, whiche accompteth it selfe to be the holy Catholicke Churche, and the Byshop therof to be most holy of all other. For many yeares ago Sathan hath so preuailed agaynst that stinkyng whore of Babylon, that her abhominations be knowen to the whole world, the name of God is by her blasphemed and of the cup of her dronkennes and poyson, hauehave all nations tasted.

AFter this cōmeth Smith to Berēgarius, Almericus, Carolostadius, Oecolampadius & Zuinglius, The true fayth was in the Church frō the begynnyng, and was not taught first by Berengarius.affirmyng that the Church euer sithens Christes tymes a thousand fiue hūdreth yeares and moe, hath beleued that Christ is bodily in the Sacrament, and neuer taught otherwise vntill Berengarius came, about a thousand yeares after Christ, whom the other folowed.

But in my booke I hauehave proued by Gods word & the old auncient Authors, that Christ is not in the sacrament corporally, but is bodily & corporally ascended into heauen, & there shall remaine vntounto the worldes end.

And so the true Church of Christ euer beleued from the beginnyng with out repugnaunce, vntill Sathan was let louse, and Antichrist came with his Papistes, which fayned a new and false doctrine contrary to Gods word, and the true Catholicke doctrine.

And this true fayth God preserueth in his holy church still, and will doe vntounto the worldes end, maugre the wicked Antichrist and all the gates of hell. And almighty God from time to time hath strēgthened many holy Martirs, for this fayth to suffer death by Antichrist, and the great harlot Babilon, who hath embrewed her handes, and is made drunken with the bloud of Martyrs. Whose bloud God will reuēge at length, although in y^e meane time he suffer the patiēce and fayth of his holy Saynts to be tried.

ALl the rest of his Preface contayneth nothing els,What Churche it is that cā not erre. but the authority of the Church, which (Smith sayth) cannot wholy erre: and he so setteth forth and extolleth the same, that he preferreth it aboue Gods word, affirming not onelyonly that it is the piller of truth, and no lesse to bee beleued then holy scripture, but also that we should not beleue holy scripture but for it. So that he maketh the word of men equall or aboue the word of God.

And truth it is in deed, that the church doth neuer wholy erre, for euer in most darcknes God shineth vntounto his elect, and in the midst of all iniquity he gouerneth them so with his holy word and spirite, that the gates of hell preuayle not agaynst them. And these be knowne to him although the world many times know them not, but hath them in derision and hatred, p. 406as it had Christ and his Apostles. Neuerthelesse at the last day they shalbe knowen to all the whole world, when the wicked shal wonder at their felicity, and say: These be they whom we sometime had in verision and mocked. We fooles thought their liues very madnes,S…p. 5. and their end to be without honour. But now loe, how they be accounted among the children of God, and theyr portion is among the sayntes. Therfore we hauehave erred frō the way of truth, the light of righteousnesse hath not shined vntounto vsus, we hauehave wearyed our selues in the way of wickednes and destruction.

But this holy church is so vnknowne to the world, that no mā can discerne it,Psal. 7. 2. Ti. 2.Ps 7:2 but God alone, who onelyonly searcheth the hartes of all men, & knoweth his true children, from other that be but bastardes.

This church is the piller of trueth, because it resteth vponupon Gods word, which is the true and sure foundation,…. Tim. 3. & wil not suffer it to erre & fall. But as for the opē knowne church, & the outward face therof, it is not the piller of truth, otherwise thē that it is (as it were) a register or treasory to keepe the bookes of Gods holy will & testament, & to rest onelyonly thereupon, as S. Augustine and Tertullian meane, in the place by M. Smith alleadged.

And as the register keepeth all mens wils, and yet hath none authority to adde, change, or take away any thing, nor yet to expound the wils further then the very words of the will extend vntounto, (so that he hath no power ouer the will, but by the will,) euen so hath the church no further power ouer the holy scripture (which conteyneth the will and testamēt of god) but onelyonly to keepe it, and to see it obserued and kept. For if the Church proceede further, to make any new Articles of the fayth, besides the Scripture, or contrary to the Scripture, or direct not the forme of life accordyng to the same, then it is not the piller of truth, nor the Church of Christ, but the sinagogue of Sathan, and the temple of Antichrist, which both erreth it selfe, and bringeth into errour as many as do folow it.

And the holy Church of Christ is but a small herd or flocke, in comparison to the great multitude of them that folow Sathan and Antichrist, as Christ him selfe sayth,Luke. 12.Luke 12 and the word of God, and the course of the world from the begynnyng vntill this day hath declared.

For from the creation of the world vntill Noes floud, what was then y^e open face of the Church? How many godly men were in those thousand and sixe hundred yeares and moe?Gene. 7.Gen 7 Dyd not iniquitie begyn at Cain to rule the worlde, and so encreased more and more, that at the length God could no lenger suffer, but drowned all the world for sinne, except viij. persons, which onelyonly were left vponupon the whole earth?

And after the world was purged by the floud, fell it not by and by to the former iniquitie agayne?Gene. 12.Gen 12 so that within few yeares after, Abraham could find no place, where he might be suffered to worshyp the true liuyng God, but that God appointed him a straunge countrey, almost clearely desolate and vnhabited: where hee and a fewe other, (contrary to the vsage of the world) honored one God.

And after the great benefites of God, shewed vntounto his people of Israell, and the law also geuen vntounto them (wherby they were taught to know him, and honor him) yet how many tymes did they fal from him? Did they not from tyme to tyme make them new Gods, & worshyp them? Was not the open face of the Church so miserably deformed, not onelyonly in the wildernesse, p. 408and in the tyme of the Iudges, but also in tyme of the kynges, that after the diuision of the kyngdome,Eccle. 49.Sir 49 amongest all the kyngs of Iuda, there was but onelyonly three, in whose tymes the true Religion was restored, & among all the kynges of Israell not somuch as one. Were not all that tyme the true Priestes of God, a few in number? Did not all the rest maintaine Idolatry and all abhominatiōs in groues and mountaines, worshippyng Baal and other false Gods? And did they not murther and slea all the true Prophetes, that taught them to worshyp the true God? In so much that Helias the Prophet, knowyng no mo of all the whole people that folowed the right trade, but him selfe alone, made his complaint vntounto almightie God, saying: O Lord, they hauehave slayne thy Prophetes, and ouerthrowen thine aultars,3. Reg. 19.1 Kgs 19 & there is no mo left but I alone, and yet they lye in wayte to flea me also. So that although almighty God suffered thē in their captiuitie at Babylon no more but lxx. yeares, yet he suffered them in their Idolatry (folowyng their owne wayes and inuentions) many hundred yeares,Iere. 25. and. 29Jer 25 the mercy of God beyng so great, that their punishment was short and small,Act. 14.Acts 14 in respect of their long and greeuous offences. And at the tyme of Christes cōmyng the hygh Priests came to their offices by such fraude, simony, murther and poysonyng, that the like hath not bene often read nor heard of, except onelyonly at Rome.

And when Christ was come, what godly religion found he? What Annasses and Cayphasses? what hypocrisie, superstition and abhomination before God, although to mens eyes thyngs appeared holy and godly? Was not then Christ alone & his Apostles, with other that beleued his doctrine, the holy & true Church? Although they were not so takē, but for heretickes, seditious persons, & blasphemers of God, & were extremely persecuted and put to vilanous death, by such as accompted them selues, & were taken for the Church, which fulfilled the measure of their fathers that persecuted the Prophets.Math. 13.Matt 13 Upon whō came al the righteous bloud, that was shed vponupon the earth from the bloud of iust Abell, vntounto the bloud of Zachary, the sonne of Barachie, whom they slew betwene the Temple and the aultar?

And how many persons remayned constantly in the true liuely fayth, at the tyme of Christes passion? I thinke M. Smith will say but a very fewe, seyng that Peter denyed Christ his Maister three tymes,Math. 26. Mar. 24.Matt 26 and all his Apostles fled away, and one for hast without his clothes.

What wonder is it then, that the open church is now of late yeares fallen into many errours and corruption, and the holy church of Christ is secret and vnknowne? seing that Sathan these 500. yeares hath beene let lose, and Antichrist raigneth, spoyling and deuouring the simple flocke of Christ. But as almighty God sayd vntounto Helias: I hauehave reserued and kept for mine ownne selfe seuen thousand,3. Reg. 19.1 Kgs 19 which neuer bowed their knee to Baall, so it is at this present. For although almighty God hath suffered these foure or fiue hundred yeares, the open face of his church to be vggely deformed, and shamefullye defiled by the sects of the Papistes (which is so manifest that now all the world knoweth it) yet hath God of his manifold mercy, euer preserued a good number (secret to himselfe) in his true religion, although Antichrist hath bathed himselfe in the bloud of no small number of them.

And although the Papistes hauehave ledde innumerable people out of the p. 409right way, yet the church is to be folowed, but the Church of Christ, not of Antichrist: the church that concerning the fayth contayneth it selfe with in gods word, not that deuiseth daily new artcles contrary to gods word. The church that by the true interpretation of scripture, and good example gathereth people vntounto Christ, not that by wrasting of the scripture and euill example of corrupt liuing, draweth them away from Christ. And now forasmuch as the wicked church of Rome (counterfayting the church of Christ) hath in this matter of the sacrament of the blessed bodie and bloud of our sauior Christ, varied from the pure and holy Church in the Apostles tyme, and many hundred yeares after (as in my booke I hauehave plainely declared, & manifestly proued) it is an easy matter to discerne, which church is to be folowed. And I cannot but maruaile, that Smith alleadgeth for for him, Vincentius Lirenensis, who (contrary to D. Smith) teacheth playnly that the canon of the Bible is perfect and fufficient of it selfe, for the truth of the Catholicke fayth: and that the whole church cannot make one article of the fayth, although it may be taken as a necessary witnes, for the receiuing and establishing of the same with these three conditions, that the thing which we would establish thereby, hath bene beleued in all places, euer and of al men. Which the Papistical doctrine in this matter hath not bene, but came from Rome sins Beringarius time by Nicolas the ii. Innocentius the third, and other of their sort: where as the doctrine which I hauehave set forth, came from Christ and his Apostles, and was of all men eueryevery where with one consent taught and beleued (as my book sheweth plainly) vntill the Papistes did transforme and transubstantiate the chiefe articles of our christen fayth.

Thus is an aunswere made vntounto the false calumniations of Smith in the preface of his book, or rather vntounto his whole booke, which is so full of bragging, boasting, slaundering, misreporting, wrangling, wrasting, false construing, and lying, that those taken out of the booke, there is nothing worthy in the whole book to be aunswered. Neuertheles in answering to the late byshop of Winchesters book. I shall fully aunswere also D. Smith in all points that require aunswere. And so with one answere shal I dispatch them both. And in some places where one of thē varieth from an other (as they do in many great matters, & in the chiefe and principall poynts) I shall set them together Bithum cum Bachio. & Esernium cum Pacidiano, to try which of them is more stout and valiaunt to ouerthrow the other.

¶ Here endeth the aunswere vntounto the Preface of M. Smithes booke which he wrote agaynst the defence of the true and catholicke doctrine of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour CHRIST.