An aunsvvere by the Reuerend Father in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury, primate of all England and metropolitane, vnto a craftie and sophisticall cauillation, deuised by Stephen Gardiner Doctour of Law, late Byshop of Winchester agaynst the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament, of the body and bloud of our sauiour Iesu Christ Wherein is also, as occasion serueth, aunswered such places of the booke of Doct. Richard Smith, as may seeme any thyng worthy the aunsweryng. Here is also the true copy of the booke written, and in open court deliuered, by D. Stephen Gardiner ...

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

I Haue now obtayned (gentle reader) that thing, which I haue 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 haue satisfied my long desire, sauing that I would haue 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 be∣ing 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 uni∣uersity he is a professor. And as concerning the late bishop of Winchester, I will declare his craftye Sophistications in myne aunswere vnto 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 er¦rour, as wel in this as in al other matters, wherin they haue bene in times past deceaued.

He seeth full well that the more diligently,* 1.1 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 giue firme credite vnto the church, as the title of the sayd preface declareth ma∣nifestly. 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 vnto 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,

taught 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.

* 1.2As for me I ground my beleefe vpon 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 vpon it selfe, but vppon Christ and his word, but the Papistes build their church vpon them selues, deuising new articles of the fayth from tyme to tyme, without any scripture, and founding the same vpon 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 ca∣tholike 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 haue written to answere the title of his preface.

* 1.3NOw 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,* 1.4 that if a young boy (that had gone to the grammer schole but thre yeres) had done no better, he should scant haue escaped some scholemasters handes with sixierkes. And beside that, he doth it so craf∣tily 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 vnto God at the holy communion, by remembrance of the death resurrection and ascention of his sonne Ie∣su Christ, and by confessing and setting forth of the same.

Heare by the vngodly handeling of this godly councell at his first be∣ginning, it may appeare to euery man, how sincerely this Papist enten∣deth to proceede in the rest of this matter.

* 1.5And 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 onely made the true sacrifice pro, piciatory for remission of sinne. And whosoeuer else taketh vpon him to make any such sacrifice, maketh himselfe Antichrist.

* 1.6And than he belyeth me in two thinges, as he vseth commonly through∣out his whole booke. The one is, that I deny the sacrifice of the Masse,* 1.7 which in my booke haue most playnly set out y^e sacrifice of christen people

in the holy communion or masse (if D. Smith will needes so terme it) and yet I haue 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 chri∣sten people to remember Christes death, to laude and thanke him for it, and to publish it and shew it abroad vnto 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 onely 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:* 1.8 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 spec∣tacles within his head, wherwith when soeuer he loketh, he seeth but what he list. For in my booke I haue written in moe then an hundred pla∣ces, that we receaue the selfe same body of Christ that was borne of the virgine Mary, that was crucified and buried, that rose agayne, ascen∣ded into heauen, and sitteth at the right hand of God the father almighty. And the contention is onely 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 (vnder∣standing the very body in deed, and not the signes of the body as Chri∣sostome 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,* 1.9 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

bread was not crucified for vs.* 1.10 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 onely 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:* 1.11 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 vs?

If I looke vpon the image of kinge Dauid, and say: This is he that kil∣led 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 writ∣ten at Pathmos? Or that S. Iohn wrote my booke which was but new¦ly 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 testa∣ment, which brought life vnto the world, by what forme of argument can you induce hereof, that my booke y^t I bought but yesterday, brought life vnto 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 vs, but his body which by the bread was signified.

If this excellent clarke and doctor vnderstand not these maner of spea∣ches (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 haue 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 haue so fully intreated of such figura∣tiue 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 vp∣on 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.

* 1.12THan 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 onely to looke vp∣on my booke, wherein it shall euidently appeare, that in all my fiue bookes I ground my foūdation vpon gods word. And least the Papistes should say, that I make the expositions of the scripture my selfe (as they com∣monly vse to do) I haue fortified my foundation by the authority of all the best learned and most holy authors and martyrs, that were in the begin∣ning of the church and many yeares after, vntill the Antichrist of Rome

rose vp and corrupted altogither.

And as for naturall reason, I make no mention therof in all my v. bookes but in one place onely, which is in my second booke speaking of Transubstantiation. And in that place I set not reason before fayth, but (as an handmayden) haue appoynted her to do seruice vnto fayth, and to wayte vpon 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 be∣fore, & 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:* 1.13 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 won∣derfull workes of God,* 1.14 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 ex∣pressed in holy scripture. And vpon these he concludeth most vainly and vntruly, that thing which in the scripture is neyther expressed nor vnder∣standed, that Christ is corporally in heauen and in earth, and in euery 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 Logi∣tiās 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 whereu∣pon 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 euery 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, say∣ing by interrogation, doth not the word of God teach this as playnly as the other? Which I affirme to be vtterly false as I haue shewed in my third boobe, the xi. and twelfe chap. where I haue most manifestly pro∣ued, 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 vnto the vi. chap. of S. Thou saying, Christ promised his disciples, to geue them such bread as should be his owne very naturall flesh,* 1.15 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 vpon the crosse for the life of the world?

Wherto I answer by his owne reason. Can this his promise be veri∣fied of sacramentall bread? was that geuen vpon the crosse for the life of

the 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 onely, but also of his bloud and of his godhead, calling them heauen∣ly 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 vpon 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 giue, shal∣be 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 vnto the woman of Samaria. The wa∣ter which I will geue,* 1.16 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 vnto eternall life: so like∣wise 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,* 1.17 but of his owne flesh. Which although of it selfe it auayleth nothing, yet (being in vnity of persō ioyned vnto his di∣uinity) it is the same heauenly bread that he gaue to death vpon 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 vs 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 vpon the same place) that Christ alone suffered for vs all, and by his woundes were we healed, he bearing our sinnes in his body vpon a tree, and being crucified for vs, 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, & ap∣poynteth the tyme of Christ giuing himselfe for the life of the world, when you say, that he gaue himselfe for vs to death, which (as you confes skant three lines before) was not at his supper, but vpon the crosse.

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

AFter the gospell of S. Ihon, M. Smith aleadgeth for his purpose S. Paule to the corinthians,* 1.18 who biddeth euery 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 drink∣ing 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 onely 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, al∣though corporally he be absent from vs, and sitteth in heauē at his fathers right hand. And as in baptisme we come not vnto the water as we come to other common waters, when we washe our handes, or bath our bo∣dies, but we know that it is a misticall water, admonishing vs of the great and manifold mercies of God towards vs, of the league and pro∣mise made betwene him and vs, and of his wonderfull working and ope∣ration in vs. 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: al∣though 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 vnto 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. Wher∣fore euery 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 misti∣call table, where the bread is misticall, and the wine also misticall, wher∣in we be taught that we spiritually feed vpon Christ, eating him and drincking him, and as it were sucking out of his side the bloud of our re∣demption & foode of eternall saluation, although he be in heauen at his fathers right hand. And whosoeuer cōmeth vnto this heauenly table, not hauing regarde to Christes flesh & bloud (who should be there our spiritu∣all foode) but commeth therto without fayth, feare, humility & reuerence (as it were but to carnall feeding) he doth not there feed vpon Christ, but the deuill doth feede vpon him, and deuoureth him, as he did Iudas.

And now may euery man perceaue, how fondly and falsly M. Smith concludeth of these wordes of S. Paule, that our Sauiour Christes bo∣dy and bloud is really and corporally in the sacrament.

* 1.19AFter 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 confe∣rences 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 writ∣ten in his booke. And if D. Smith vnderstode him otherwise in his Lec∣tures 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 ther∣fore 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 haue 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 sacri∣fice 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 er∣rors at that tyme ouerflowing the world. For the which and other mine offences in youth, I do dayly pray vnto God for mercy and pardon, say∣ing. 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 vnto 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 ig∣norance. 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 vnto 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 vn∣derstood like a child: But now that I come to mans estate and growing in Christ through his grace and mercy,* 1.20 I haue 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

what 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 haue turned twise, & retracted your errours, and the third time pro∣mised, 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 tur¦neth about with euery 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 onely iudgement I shall stand or fall) sauing that this I will say before God (who is euery 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 onely 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. Pe∣ter 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 forsa∣keth them that put their trust in him) prouided for him.

BUt after this exclamation, this papist returneth to the matter, saying:* 1.21 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 haue 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 vs 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 vs, neither is Christs body corporally present in one proper place with the

bread and wine, nor was also with the stone or doore. For the Scripture sayth in no place,* 1.22 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,* 1.23 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?* 1.24 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.

* 1.25THen from the doore and sepulchre, Doct. Smith commeth to the Re∣uelations of Peter and Paule, which saw Christ (as he sayth) bodily vpon 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 Sa∣crament of the aultar. I am not so ignorant, but I know that Christ ap∣peared to S. Paule, and sayd to him: Saule Saule, why doest thou per∣secute me?* 1.26 But S. Augustin sayth that Christ at his Ascention spake the last wordes, that euer he speake vpon earth. And yet we finde that Christ speaketh (sayth he) but in heauen and from heauen, and not vpon 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 vpon earth.

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

And as the father spake from heauen, whan he sayd: This is my belo∣ued sonne,* 1.27 in whom I am pleased, and also S. Stephen saw Christ sit∣tyng in heauen at his fathers right hand: euen so ment S. Augustin, that S. Paule and all other that haue sene and heard Christ speake since his Ascention,* 1.28 haue sene and heard him from heauen.

* 1.29NOw 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

Monkes, 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 suf∣fer 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, haue all nations tasted.

AFter this cōmeth Smith to Berēgarius, Almericus, Carolostadius, Oeco∣lampadius & Zuinglius,* 1.30 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 haue proued by Gods word & the old auncient Au∣thors, that Christ is not in the sacrament corporally, but is bodily & corpo∣rally ascended into heauen, & there shall remaine vnto 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 vnto 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,* 1.31 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, affir∣ming not onely 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 vnto his elect, and in the midst of all iniqui∣ty 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,

as 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 fe∣licity, and say: These be they whom we sometime had in verision and moc∣ked. We fooles thought their liues very madnes,* 1.32 and their end to be with∣out honour. But now loe, how they be accounted among the children of God, and theyr portion is among the sayntes. Therfore we haue erred frō the way of truth, the light of righteousnesse hath not shined vnto vs, we haue wearyed our selues in the way of wickednes and destruction.

But this holy church is so vnknowne to the world, that no mā can dis∣cerne it,* 1.33 but God alone, who onely searcheth the hartes of all men, & kno∣weth his true children, from other that be but bastardes.

This church is the piller of trueth, because it resteth vpon Gods word, which is the true and sure foundation,* 1.34 & 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 onely 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 fur∣ther then the very words of the will extend vnto, (so that he hath no pow∣er ouer the will, but by the will,) euen so hath the church no further pow∣er ouer the holy scripture (which conteyneth the will and testamēt of god) but onely to keepe it, and to see it obserued and kept. For if the Church pro∣ceede further, to make any new Articles of the fayth, besides the Scrip∣ture, 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 compari∣son to the great multitude of them that folow Sathan and Antichrist, as Christ him selfe sayth,* 1.35 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?* 1.36 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. per∣sons, which onely were left vpon the whole earth?

And after the world was purged by the floud, fell it not by and by to the former iniquitie agayne?* 1.37 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 vnto his people of Isra∣ell, and the law also geuen vnto 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 onely in the wilder∣nesse,

and in the tyme of the Iudges, but also in tyme of the kynges, that after the diuision of the kyngdome,* 1.38 amongest all the kyngs of Iuda, there was but onely three, in whose tymes the true Religion was restored, & a∣mong 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 vnto almightie God, saying: O Lord, they haue slayne thy Prophetes, and ouerthrowen thine aultars,* 1.39 & 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 cap∣tiuitie at Babylon no more but lxx. yeares, yet he suffered them in their I∣dolatry (folowyng their owne wayes and inuentions) many hundred yeares,* 1.40 the mercy of God beyng so great, that their punishment was short and small,* 1.41 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 onely at Rome.

And when Christ was come, what godly religion found he? What An∣nasses 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.* 1.42 Upon whō came al the righteous bloud, that was shed vp∣on the earth from the bloud of iust Abell, vnto 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,* 1.43 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 fal∣len into many errours and corruption, and the holy church of Christ is se∣cret 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 vnto Helias: I haue reserued and kept for mine ownne selfe seuen thousand,* 1.44 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 mani∣fold 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 haue ledde innumerable people out of the

right 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 vnto Christ, not that by wrasting of the scripture and e∣uill 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 haue plainely de∣clared, & 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 arti∣cle of the fayth, although it may be taken as a necessary witnes, for the re∣ceiuing 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. In∣nocentius the third, and other of their sort: where as the doctrine which I haue set forth, came from Christ and his Apostles, and was of all men eue∣ry where with one consent taught and beleued (as my book sheweth plain¦ly) vntill the Papistes did transforme and transubstantiate the chiefe arti∣cles of our christen fayth.

Thus is an aunswere made vnto the false calumniations of Smith in the preface of his book, or rather vnto 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 prin¦cipall poynts) I shall set them to∣gether Bithum cum Bachio. & Esernium cum Pacidiano, to try which of them is more stout and valiaunt to o∣uerthrow the other.

¶ Here endeth the aunswere vnto 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.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Falshood fea∣reth the light, but light desi∣reth to be tryed.
• * 1.2

  Fayth ought to be grounded vp on Gods word, but the Papists ground their faith vpon them selues.
• * 1.3

  Ephesine coū∣cell.
• * 1.4

  Cyrill the au∣thor of y^e words in the counsell.
• * 1.5

  Smith beleueth the counsell.
• * 1.6

  Smith belieth me twise in one place.
• * 1.7

  The first lye.
• * 1.8

  The second ly.
• * 1.9

  Smith sayth that Christ cal∣led not bread his body.
• * 1.10

  Luke. 12.
• * 1.11

  1. Cor. 10.
• * 1.12

  Setting of the cart before the Horses.
• * 1.13

  Math. 26. 1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.14

  Of the wōder∣full workes of God.
• * 1.15

  Iohn. 6.
• * 1.16

  Iohn. 4.
• * 1.17

  Iohn. 6.
• * 1.18

  The place of S. Paule. 1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.19

  Master Peter Martyr.
• * 1.20

  1. Cor. 13.
• * 1.21

  The Argumēt of the doore and Sepulchre.
• * 1.22

  Math. 28.
• * 1.23

  Mar. 16. Iohn. 20.
• * 1.24

  Actes. 5.
• * 1.25

  The appearyng of Christ in his Ascention.
• * 1.26

  Actes. 13. S. Augustine.
• * 1.27

  Math. 3. &. 17.
• * 1.28

  Actes. 7.
• * 1.29

  The Church.
• * 1.30

  The true fayth was in the Church frō the begynnyng, and was not taught first by Beren∣garius.
• * 1.31

  What Churche it is that cā not erre.
• * 1.32

  S••p. 5.
• * 1.33

  Psal. 7. 2. Ti. 2.
• * 1.34

  ••. Tim. 3.
• * 1.35

  Luke. 12.
• * 1.36

  Gene. 7.
• * 1.37

  Gene. 12.
• * 1.38

  Eccle. 49.
• * 1.39

  3. Reg. 19.
• * 1.40

  Iere. 25. and. 29
• * 1.41

  Act. 14.
• * 1.42

  Math. 13.
• * 1.43

  Math. 26. Mar. 24.
• * 1.44

  3. Reg. 19.