The Answer of Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, Against the False Calumniations of Doctor Richard Smith, Who Hath Taken upon Him to Confute the Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Body and Blood of Our Saviour Christ
- I mAVE now obtained, gentle reader, that thing which I have much desired, which was, that if all men would not embrace the truth lately set forth by me, concerning the sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, at the least some man would vouchsafe to take pen in hand and write against my book, because that thereby the truth might both better be searched out, and also more certainly known to the world. And herein I heartily thank the late bishop of Winchester, and doctor Smith, who partly have satisfied my long desire; saving that I would have wished adversaries more substantially learned in holy scriptures, more exercised in the old ancient ecclesiastical authors, and having a more godly zeal to the trial 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 dregs of papistry, brought up and confirmed in the same; the one by Duns and Dorbell, and such like sophisters; the other by the popish canon law, whereof by his degree, taken in the university, he is a professor. And as concerning the late bishop of Winchester, I will declare his crafty sophistications in mine answer unto his book.
But doctor Smith, as it appeareth:by the title of his preface, hath craftily devised an easy way to obtain his purpose, that the people, being barred from the searching of the truth, might be still kept in blindness and error, as well in this as in all other matters, wherein they have been in times past deceived.
He seeth full well that the more diligently matters be searched out and discussed, the more clearly the craft and falsehood of the subtile papists will appear. And therefore in the preface to the reader he exhorteth all men to leave disputing and reasoning of the same by learning, and to give firm credit unto the church, as the title of the said preface declareth manifestly: as who should say, the truth of any matter that is in question might be tried out, without debating and reasoning by the word of God, whereby, as by the true touchstone, all men’s doctrines are to be tried and examined. But the truth is not ashamed to come to the light, and to be tried to the uttermost. For as pure gold, the more it is tried the more pure it appeareth, so is all manner of truth: whereas, on the other side, all maskers, counterfeiters, and false deceivers abhor the light, and refuse the trial. If all men, without right or reason, would give credit unto this papist and his Romish church, against the most certain word of God and the old holy and catholic church of Christ, the matter should be soon at an end, and out of all controversy. But forasmuch as the pure word of God and the first church of Christ from the beginning taught the true catholic faith, and Smith with his church of Rome do now teach the clean contrary, the chaff cannot be tried out from the pure corn (that is to say, the untruth discerned from the very truth) without threshing, windowing, and fanning, searching, debating, and reasoning.
As for me, I ground my belief upon God’s word, wherein can be no error, having also the consent of the primitive church, requiring no man to believe me further than I have God’s word for me. But these papists speak at their pleasure what they list, and would be believed without God’s word, because they bear men in hand that they be the
[themselves. -]
ἡ dE THE ANSWER TO SMITH’S PREFACE. 369 church. The church of Christ is not founded upon itself, but upon Christ and his word: but the papists build their church upon themselves, devising new articles of the faith from time to time, without any scripture, and founding the same upon the pope and his clergy, monks and friars; and by that means they be both the makers and judges of their faith themselves. Wherefore this papist, like a politic man, doth right wisely provide for himself and his church in the first entry of his book, that all men should leave searching for the truth, and stick hard and fast to the church, meaning himself and the church of Rome. For from the true catholic church the Romish church, which he accounteth catholic, hath varied and dissented many years past, as the blindest that this day do live may well see and perceive, if they will not purposely wink and shut up their eyes. This I have written to answer the title of his preface.
Now in the beginning of the very preface itself, when this great doctor should recite the words of Ephesine council’, he translateth them so unlearnedly, that if a young boy, that had gone to the grammar school but three years, had done no better, he should scant have escaped some schoolmasters hands with six jerks. And beside that, he doth it so craftily to serve his purpose, that he cannot be excused of wilful depravation of the words, calling “celebration” an offering,” and referring the participle “made” to Christ, which should be referred to the word partakers,” and leaving out those words that should declare that the said council spake of no propitiatory sacrifice in the mass, but of a sacrifice of laud and thanks, which christian people give unto God at the holy communion by remembrance of the death, resurrection, and ascension of his Son Jesus Christ, and by confessing and setting forth of the same.
Here by the ungodly handling of this godly council at his first beginning, it may appear to every man how sincerely this papist intendeth to proceed in the rest of this matter.
And with like sincerity he untruly belieth the said council, saying that it doth plainly set forth the holy sacrifice of the mass, which doth not so much as once name the mass, but speaketh of the sacrifice of the church, which the said council declareth to be the profession of christian people in setting forth the benefit of Christ, who only made the true sacrifice propitiatory for remission of sin. And whosoever else taketh upon him to make any such sacrifice, maketh himself antichrist.
And then he belieth me in two things, as he useth commonly throughout his whole book. The one is, that I deny the sacrifice of the mass, which in my book have most plainly set out the sacrifice of christian people in the holy communion or mass, (if Doctor Smith will needs so term it;) and yet I have denied that it is a sacrifice propitiatory for sin, or that the priest alone maketh any sacrifice there. For it is the sacrifice of all christian people to remember Christ’s death, to laud and thank him for it, and to publish it and shew it abroad unto other, to his honour and glory.
The controversy is not, whether in the holy communion be made a sacrifice or not, (for herein both Doctor Smith and I agree with the foresaid council at Ephesus;) but whether it be a propitiatory sacrifice or not, and whether only the priest make. the said sacrifice, these be the points wherein we vary. And I say so far as the council saith, that there is a sacrifice; but that the same is propitiatory for remission of sin, or that the priest alone doth offer it, neither I nor the council do so say, but Doctor Smith hath added that of his own vain head.
The other thing wherein Doctor Smith belieth me is this: he saith, that I “deny that we receive in the sacrament that flesh which is adjoined to God’s own Son.” I
[[! Concilium Ephesinum, a.p. 431. Καταγ- ἡμῶν σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ” καὶ οὐχ ws σάρκα κοινὴν]
[γέλλοντες τὸν κατὰ σάρκα θάνατον τοῦ μονογενοῦς δεχόμενοι” wi) γένοιτο” οὔτε μὴν ὡς ἀνδρὸς ἡγιασ-]
[υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τουτέστιν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τήν τε ἐκ μένου, καὶ συναφθέντος τῷ λόγῳ κατὰ τὴν ἑνότητα]
[νεκρῶν ἀναβίωσιν καὶ Tijv εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνάληψιν τῆς ἀξίας, ἤγουν ὡς θείαν ἐνοίκησιν ἐσχηκότος” ἀλλ]
[ὁμολογοῦντες, τὴν ἀναίμακτον ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ὡς ζωοποιὸν ἀληθῶς, καὶ ἰδίαν αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου.---]
[τελοῦμεν θυσίαν” πρόσιμέν τε οὕτω ταῖς μυστικαῖς Epist. Cyrilli, et Synodi Alexandr. ad Nestorium,]
[εὐλογίαις, καὶ ἁγιαζόμεθα, μέτοχοι γενόμενοι τῆς Te S vii. Tom. V. p. 399. Conc. Ed. Paris. 1644.]]
[ἁγίας σαρκὸς, kal τοῦ τιμίου αἵματος τοῦ πάντων [crANMER. ] 24]
marvel not a little what eyes Doctor Smith had, when he read over my book. It is like that he had some privy spectacles within his head, wherewith whensoever he looketh, he seeth but what he list. For in my book I have written in more than an hundred places, that we receive the self-same body of Christ that was born of the virgin Mary, that was crucified and buried, that rose again, ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: and the contention is only in the manner and form how we receive it.
For I say (as all the old holy fathers and martyrs used to say), that we receive Christ spiritually by faith with our minds, eating his flesh and drinking his blood: so that we receive Christ’s own very natural body, but not naturally nor corporally. But this lying papist saith, that we eat his natural body corporally with our mouths; which neither the council Ephesine, nor any other ancient council or doctor ever said or thought.
And the controversy in the council Ephesine was not of the uniting of Christ’s flesh to the forms of bread and wine in the sacrament, but of the uniting of his flesh to his divinity at his incarnation in unity of person. Which thing Nestorius the heretic denied, confessing that Christ was a godly man as other were, but not that he was very God in nature; which heresy that holy council confuting, affirmeth that the flesh of Christ was so joined in person to the divine nature, that it was made the proper flesh of the Son of God, and flesh that gave life: but that the said flesh was present in the sacrament corporally, and eaten with our mouths, no mention is made thereof in that council.
And here I require Doctor Smith, as proctor for the papists, either to bring forth some ancient council or doctor, that saith as he saith, that Christ’s own natural body is eaten corporally with our mouths, understanding the very body in deed, (and not the signs of the body, as Chrysostom doth,) or else let him confess that my saying is true, and recant his false doctrine the third time, as he hath done twice already ’.
Then forth goeth this papist with his preface, and saith, that these words, “This is my body that shall be given to death for you,” no man can truly understand of bread. And his proof thereof is this, because that bread was not crucified for us. First, here he maketh a lie of Christ. For Christ said not, as this papist allegeth, “This is my body, which shall be given to death for you;” but only he saith, This is my body which is given for you;” which words some understand not of the giving of the body of Christ to death, but of the breaking and giving of bread to his apostles, as St Paul said: “The bread which we break,” &c.
But let it be that he spake of the giving of his body to death, and said of the bread, “This is my body, which shall be given to death for you:” by what reason can you gather hereof, that the bread was crucified for us?
If I look upon the image of king David, and say, “This is he that killed Goliath;” doth this speech mean, that the image of king David killed Goliath? Or if I hold in my hand my book of St John’s gospel, and say, “This is the gospel that St John wrote at Pathmos,” (which fashion of speech is commonly used,) doth it follow hereof that my book was written at Pathmos? or that St John wrote my book, which was but newly printed at Paris, by Robert Stephanus? Or if I say of my book of St Paul’s epistles, “This is Paul that was the great persecutor of Christ; doth this manner of speech signify, that my book doth persecute Christ? Or if I shew a book of the new testament, saying, This is the new testament, which brought life unto the world; ” by what form of argument can you induce hereof, that my book that I bought but yesterday, brought life unto the world? No man that useth thus to speak doth mean of the books, but of the very things themselves that in the books be taught and contained. And after the same wise, if Christ called bread his body, saying, This is my body, which shall be given to death for you;” yet
[^ [^ Vide Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, Vol. I. Ed. Oxford. 1940; also, Strype’s Ecclesiastical Me- —]
[p. 243, and Vol. IT. p. 795. Appendix. Num. xxxix. morials, Vol. II. p. 61, cap. vi. Ed. Oxford. 1822].]
he meant not, that the bread should be given to death for us, but his body, which by the bread was signified.
If this excellent clerk and doctor understand not these manner of speeches, that be so plain, then hath he both lost his senses, and forgotten his grammar, which teacheth to refer the relative to the next antecedent. But of these figurative speeches I have spoken at large in my third book: first in the eighth chapter, proving by authority of the oldest authors in Christs church, “that he called bread his body, and wine his blood;” and again in the ninth, tenth, eleventh’, and twelfth chapters, I have so fully entreated of such figurative speeches, that it should be but a superfluous labour here to speak of any more: but I refer the reader to those places.
And if Master Doctor require a further answer herein, let him look upon the late bishop of Winchester book, called “The Detection of the Devil’s Sophistry,” where he writeth plainly, that when Christ spake these words, This is my body,” he made demonstration of the bread.
Tur further in this prologue this papist is not ashamed to say, that I set the cart before the horses, putting reason first, and faith after: which lie is so manifest, that it needeth no further proof but only to look upon my book, wherein it shall evidently appear, that in all my five books I ground my foundation upon God’s word. And lest the papists should say, that I make the expositions of the scripture myself, as they commonly use to do, I have 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 years after, until the antichrist of Rome rose up and corrupted altogether.
And as for natural reason, I make no mention thereof in all my five books, but in one place only, which is in my second book, speaking of transubstantiation. And in that place I set not reason before faith, but, as an hand-maiden, have appointed her to do service unto faith, and to wait upon her. And in that place she hath done such service that D. Smith durst not once look her in the face, nor find any fault with her service, but hath slyly and craftily stolen away by her, as though he saw her not.
But in his own book he hath so impudently set the cart before the horses in Christ’s own words, putting the words behind that go before, and the words before that go behind, that, except a shameless papist, no man durst be so bold to attempt any such thing of his own head. For where the evangelist and St Paul rehearse Christs words thus, “Take, eat, this is my body;” he in the confutation of my second book turneth the order upside down, and saith: “This is my body, take and eat.”
After this, in his preface, he rehearseth a great number of the wonderful works of God, as that God made all the world of nought, that he made Adam of the earth, and Eve of his side, the bush to flame with fire and burn not, and many other like; “which be most manifestly expressed in holy scripture. And upon these he concludeth most vainly and untruly that thing which in the scripture is neither expressed nor understanded, that Christ is corporally in heaven and in earth, and in every place where the sacrament is.
And yet D. Smith saith, that God’s word doth teach this as plainly as the other: using herein such a kind of sophistical argument as all logicians do reprehend, which is called petitio principii, when a man taketh that thing for a supposition and an approved truth, which is in controversy. And so doth he in this place, when he saith: “Doth not God’s word teach it thee as plainly as the other?” Here by this interrogatory he required that thing to be granted him as a truth, which he ought io prove, and whereupon dependeth the whole matter that is in question; that is to say, whether it be as plainly set out in the scripture, that Christ’s body is corporally in every place where the sacrament is, as that God created all things of nothing,
[[? Vide supra, pp. 104, 5.] [5 pp. 118, 119, 121—132.] [? p. H0.] [? pp. 135—137.] [ pp. 110, 111, 113, 114—116.] 24—2]
Adam of the earth, and Eve of Adam’s side, &c. This is it that I deny, and that he should prove. But he taketh it for a supposition, saying by interrogation, Doth not the word of God teach this as plainly as the other?”— which I affirm to be utterly false, as I have shewed in my third book, the eleventh and twelfth? chapters, where I have most manifestly proved, as well by God’s word as by ancient authors, that these words of Christ, This is my body,” and “This is my blood,” be no plain speeches, but figurative.
Then forth goeth this papist unto the sixth chapter of St John, saying, Christ promised his disciples to give them such bread as should be his own very natural flesh, which he would give to death for the life of the world. “Can this his promise,” saith Master Smith, be verified of common bread? Was that given upon the cross for the life of the world?”
Whereto I answer by his own reason: Can this his promise be verified of sacramental bread? was that given upon the cross for the life of the world? I marvel here not a little of Master Smith’s either dulness or maliciousness, that cannot or will not see, that Christ in this chapter of St John spake not of sacramental bread, but of heavenly bread; nor of his flesh only, but also of his blood and of his Godhead, calling them heavenly bread that giveth everlasting life. So that he spake of himself wholly, saying: “I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall not thirst for ever.” And neither spake he of common bread, nor yet of sacramental bread: for neither of them was given upon the cress for the life of the world.
And there can be nothing more manifest than that, in this sixth chapter of John, Christ spake not of the sacrament of his flesh, but of his very flesh; and that, as well for that the sacrament was not then instituted, as also that Christ said not in the future tense, “The bread which I will give shall be my flesh,” but in the present tense, “The bread which I will give is my flesh;” which sacramental bread was neither then his flesh, nor was then instituted for a sacrament, nor was after given to death for the life of the world.
But as Christ, when he said unto the woman of Samaria, “The water which I wil give shall spring into everlasting life,” he meant neither of material water, nor of the accidents of water, but of the Holy Ghost, which is the heavenly fountain, that springeth unto eternal life; so likewise when he said, ’ The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,” he meant neither of the material bread, neither of the accidents of bread, but of his own flesh. “Which although of itself it availeth nothing, yet (being in unity of person joined unto his divinity) it is the same heavenly bread that he gave to death upon the cross for the life of the world. ’ But here Master Smith asketh a question of the time, saying thus: When gave Christ that bread, which was his very flesh that he gave for us to death, if he did it not at his last supper, when he said, ‘This is my body, that shall be given for you’?”
I answer, according to Cyril’s mind upon the same place, that Christ alone suffered for us all, and by his wounds were we healed, he bearing our sins in his body upon a tree, and being crucified for us, that by his death we might live.
But what need I, Master Smith, to labour in answering to your question of the time, when your question in itself containeth the answer, and appointeth the time of Christ giving himself for the life of the world, when you say, that he gave himself for us to death; which, as you confess scant three lines before, was not at his supper, but upon the cross? E And if you will have none other giving of Christ for us, but at his supper, (as your reason pretendeth, or else it is utterly nought,) then surely Christ is much bound unto you, that have delivered him from all his mocking, whipping, scourging, crucifying, and all other pains of death, which he suffered for us upon the cross, and bring
[[^ Vide supra, pp. 118, 119, 121—32. ] [ Cyril. in Joan, Lib. tv. cap. 12.] [? pp. 135—137.] 4]
á THE ANSWER TO SMITH’S PREFACE. 373 to pass that he was given only at his supper, without blood or pain, for the life of the world. But then is all the world little beholding unto you, that by delivering ef Christ from death, will suffer all the world to remain in death, which can have mo life but by his death.
ArrER the gospel of St John, M. Smith allegeth for his purpose St Paul to the Corinthians, who biddeth every man to examine himself, before he receive this sacrament. For he that eateth and drinketh it unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, eating and drinking his own damnation, because he discerneth not our Lord’s body.”
Here by the way it is to be noted, that D. Smith, in reciting the words of St Paul, doth alter them purposely, commonly putting this word sacrament” in the stead of these words, “bread and wine,” (which words he seemeth so much to abhor, as if they were toads or serpents, because they make against his transubstantiation,) whereas St Paul ever useth those words, and never nameth this word “sacrament.”
But to the matter: What need we to examine ourselves,” saith D. Smith, when we shall eat but common bread and drink wine of the grape? Is a man guilty of the body and blood of Christ, which eateth and drinketh nothing else, but only bare bread made of corn, and mere wine of the grape? Who saith so, good sir? Do I say in my book, that those which come to the Lord’s table do eat nothing else but bare bread made of corn, nor drink nothing but mere wine made of grapes?” How often do I teach and repeat again and again, that as corporally with our mouths we eat and drink the sacramental bread and wine, so spiritually with our hearts, by faith, do we eat Christs very flesh, and drink his very blood, and do both feed and live spiritually by him, although corporally he be absent from us, and sitteth in heaven at his Father’s right hand! And as in baptism we come not unto the water as we come to other common waters, when we wash our hands, or bathe our bodies, but we know that it is a mystical water, admonishing us of the great and manifold mercies of God towards us, of the league and promise made between him and us, and of his wonderful working and operation in us; wherefore we come to that water with such fear, reverence, and humility, as we would come to the presence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and of Jesus Christ himself, both God and man, although he be not corporally in the water, but in heaven above; and whosoever cometh to that water, being of the age of discretion, must examine himself duly, lest if he come unworthily, none otherwise than he would come unto other common waters, he be not renewed in Christ, but instead of salvation receive his damnation: even so it is of the bread and wine in the Lord’s holy supper. Wherefore “every man,” as St Paul saith, “must examine himself,” when he shall approach to that holy table, and not come to God’s board as he would do to common feasts and banquets; but must consider that it is a mystical table, where the bread is mystical, and the wine also mystical, whereim we be taught that we spiritually feed upon Christ, eating him and drinking him, and as it were sucking out of his side the blood of our redemption and food of eternal salvation, although he be in heaven at his Fathers right hand. And whosoever cometh unto this heavenly table, not having regard to Christ’s flesh and blood, who should be there our spiritual food, but cometh thereto without faith, fear, humility, and reverence, as it were but to carnal feeding, he doth not there feed upon Christ, but the devil doth feed upon him, and devoureth him, as he did Judas.
And now may every man perceive how fondly and falsely M. Smith concludeth of these words of St Paul, that our Saviour Christ’s body and blood is really and corporally in the sacrament.”
ArrER this he falleth to railing, lying, and slandering of M. Peter Martyr, a man of that excellent learning and godly living, that he passeth D. Smith as far as the sun in his clear light passeth the moon being in the eclipse.
Peter Martyr,” saith 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, and saw that doctrine misliked them that might do him hurt in his living, he anon after turned his tippet, and sang another song.”
Of M. Peter Martyrs opinion and judgment in this matter, no man can better testify than I; forasmuch as he 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 mind that he is now, and as he defended after openly in Oxford, and hath written in his book. And if D. Smith understood him otherwise in his lectures at the beginning, it was for lack of knowledge, for that then D. Smith understood not the matter, nor yet doth not, as it appeareth by this foolish and unlearned book, which he hath now set out: no more than he understood my book of the catechism, and therefore reporteth untruly of me, that I in that book did set forth the real presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament. Unto which false report I have answered in my fourth book, the eighth chapter’.
But this I confess of myself, that not long before I wrote the said catechism, I was in that error of the real presence, as I was many years past in divers other errors: as of transubstantiation, of the sacrifice propitiatory of the priests in the mass, of pilgrimages, purgatory, pardons, and many other superstitions and errors that came from Rome; being brought up from youth in them, and nousled therein for lack of good instruction from my youth, the outrageous floods of papistical errors at that time overflowing the world. For the which, and other mine offences in youth, I do daily pray unto God for mercy and pardon, saying: Delicta juventutis mec et ignorantias meas ne memineris, Domine. Good Lord, remember not mine ignorances and offences of my youth.”
But after it had pleased God to shew unto me, by his holy word, a more perfect knowledge of his Son Jesus Christ, from time to time as I grew in knowledge of him, by little and little I put away my former ignorance. And as God of his mercy gave me light, so through his grace I opened mine eyes to receive it, and did not wilfully repugn unto God and remain in darkness. And I trust in God’s mercy and pardon for my former errors, because I erred but of frailness and ignorance. And now I may say of myself, as St Paul said: When I was like a babe or child in the 1cor. xiii. knowledge of Christ, I spake like a child, and understood like a child: but now that I come to man’s estate and growing in Christ, through his grace and mercy, I have put away that childishness.”
Now after that Doctor Smith hath thus untruly belied both me and M. Peter
403. Martyr, he falleth into his exclamations, saying: “Ὁ Lord, what man is so mad to believe such mutable teachers, which change their doctrine at men’s pleasure, as they see advantage and profit? “They turn, and will turn, as the wind turneth.”
Do you not remember, M. Smith, the fable, how the old crab rebuked her young, that they went not straight forth; and the common experience, that those that look asquint sometimes find fault with them that look right? You have turned twice and retracted your errors, 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 men’s pleasures turn like the wind, as we see advantage?” Shall the weathercock of Paul’s, that turneth about with every wind, lay the fault in the church, and say that it turneth?
I will not here answer for myself, but leave the judgment to God, who seeth the bottom of all men’s hearts, and at whose only judgment I shall stand or fall; saving that this I will say before God, who is every where present, and knoweth all things that be done, that as for seeking to please men in this matter, I think my conscience clear, that I never sought herein but only the pleasure and glory of God. And yet. will I not judge myself herein, nor take D. Smith for my judge, but will refer the judgment to him that is the rightful judge of all men. But as for Doctor Peter Martyr, hath he sought to please men for advantage? who, having a great yearly revenue in his own country, forsook all for Christ’s sake, and for the truth and glory of God came into strange countries, where he had neither land nor friends, but as
[[! Vide supra, pp. 225, 6.] [? Vide Strype’s Cranmer, Vol. I. pp. 244, 289.]]
. God of his goodness, who never forsaketh them that put their trust in him, provided for him? 3 Bur after his exclamation, this papist returneth to the matter, saying: “Tell me, why may not Christ’s body be as well in the sacrament and in heaven both at once, as that his body was in one proper place with the body of the stone that lay still upon his grave when he rose from death to life, and as his body was in one proper place at once with the body of the door or gate, when, the same being shut, he entered into the house where the apostles were?”
Make you these two things to be all one, M. Smith, “divers bodies to be in one place, and one body to be in divers places?” If Christ’s body had been in one place with the substance of the stone or door, and at the same time, then you might well have proved thereby, that his body may as well be in one place with the substance of bread and wine. But what availeth this to prove, that his body may be in divers places at one time? which is nothing like to the other, but rather clean contrary. Marry, when Christ arose out of the sepulchre, or came into the house when the doors were shut, if you can prove that at the same time he was in heaven, then were that to some purpose to prove that his body may be corporally in heaven and earth both at one time.
And yet the controversy here in this matter is, not what may be, but what is. “God can do many things, which he neither doth nor will do.” And to us his will, in things that appear not to our senses, is not known but by his word. Christ’s body may be as well in the bread and wine, as in the door and stone; and yet it may be also in the door and stone, and not in the bread and wine.
But if we will stretch out our faith no further than God’s word doth lead us, neither is Christ’s body corporally present in one proper place with the bread and wine, nor was also with the stone or door. For the scripture saith in no place, that the body of Christ was in the door, or in the stone that covered the sepulchre; but it saith plainly that an angel came down from heaven, and removed away the stone from the sepulchre; and the women that came to see the sepulchre found the stone removed away.” And although the gospel say, that “Christ came into the house when the door was shut,” yet it saith not that “Christ’s body was within the door, so that the door and it occupied both but one place.”
But peradventure M. Smith will ask me this question: How could Christ come into the house, the door being shut, except he came through the door, and that his body must be in the door?” To your wise question, M. Smith, I will answer by another question: Could not Christ come as well into the house, when the door was shut, as the apostles could go out of prison, the door being shut? Could not God work this thing, except the apostles must go through the door, and occupy the same place that the door did? Or could not Christ do so much for his own self, as he did for his apostles?
But M. Smith is so blind in his own phantasies, that he seeth not how much his own examples make against himself. For if it be like in the sacrament as it was in the stone and door, and Christ’s body was in one proper place with the body and substance of the stone and door, then must Christ’s body in the sacrament be in one proper place with the body and substance of bread and wine. And so he must then confess that there is no transubstantiation.
TurN from the door and sepulchre, D. Smith cometh to the revelations of Peter and Paul, which saw Christ (as he saith) bodily upon earth after his ascension: which declareth, that although Christ departed hence at the time of his ascension into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father, yet he may be also here in the blessed sacrament of the altar.” I am ποὺ so ignorant but I know that Christ appeared to St Paul, and said to him, Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?” But St Augustine saith that Christ at his ascension spake the last words that ever he spake upon earth. And yet we find that Christ speaketh,” saith he, “but in heaven and from heaven, and not upon earth. For he spake to Paul from above,
saying: Saul, Saul why dost thou persecute me?’ The head was in heaven, and yet he said, Why dost thou persecute me?’ because he persecuted his members upon earth ’.”
And if this please not Master Smith, let him blame St Augustine and not me, for I feign not this myself, but only allege St Augustine. & And as the Father spake from heaven, when he said, “This is my beloved Son, ἴῃ whom I am pleased;” and also St Stephen “saw Christ sitting in heaven at his Fathers right hand:” even so meant St Augustine, that St Paul and all other that have seen and heard Christ speak since his ascension, have seen and heard him from heaven.
Now, when this papist, going forward with his works, seeth his building so feeble and weak that it is not able to stand, he returneth to his chief foundation, the church and councils general, willing all men to stay thereupon, and to leave disputing and reasoning. And chiefly he shoareth up his house with the council Lateranense, whereat,” saith he, “were thirteen hundred fathers and fifteen.” But he telleth not that eight hundred of them were monks, friars, and canons, the bishop of Romes own dear dearlings and chief champions, called together in his name, and not in Christs. From which brood of vipers and serpents what thing can be thought to come, but that did proceed from the spirit of their most holy father that first begat them, that is to say, from the spirit of antichrist?
And yet I know this to be true, that Christ is present with his holy church, which is his holy elected people, and shall be with them to the world’s end, leading and governing them with his holy Spirit, and teaching them all truth mecessary for their salvation. And whensoever any such be gathered together in his name, there is he among them, and he shall not suffer the gates of hell to prevail against them. For although he may suffer them by their own frailness for a time to err, fall, and to die, yet finally neither Satan, hell, sin, nor eternal death, shall prevail against them.
But it is not so of the church and see of Rome, which accounteth itself to be the holy catholic church, and the bishop thereof to be most holy of all other. For many years ago Satan hath so prevailed against that stinking whore of Babylon, that her abominations be known to the whole world, the name of God is by her blasphemed, and of the cup of her drunkenness and poison have all nations tasted.
AFTER this cometh Smith to Berengarius, Almericus, Carolostadius, (Ecolampadius, om and Zuinglius, affirming that the church ever sithens Christ’s time, a thousand five ns hundred years and more, hath believed that Christ is bodily in the sacrament, and Be. never taught otherwise until Berengarius came, about a thousand years after Christ, whom the other followed.
But in my book I have proved by God’s word and the old ancient authors, that Christ is not in the sacrament corporally, but is bodily and corporally ascended into heaven, and there shall remain unto the world’s end.
And so the true church of Christ ever believed from the beginning without repugnance, until Satan was let loose, and antichrist came with his papists, which feigned a new and false doctrine, contrary to God’s word and the true catholic docirine.
And this true faith God preserveth in his holy church still, and will do unto the world’s end, maugre the wicked antichrist and all the gates of hell. And Almighty God from time to time hath strengthened many holy martyrs, for this faith to suffer death by antichrist and the great harlot of Babylon, who hath embrued her hands, and is made drunken with the blood of martyrs. Whose blood God will revenge
[[’ Adscensurus enim dixit verba novissima, post quare? quia membra calcabantur in terra. Perse- 1]
[1psa verba non est locutus in terra. Adscensurum cutori enim Saulo dixit desuper, Saule, Saule, quid — —]
[caput in celum, commendavit membra in terra; et me persequeris? ——August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. In —.]
[discessit. Jam non invenis loqui Christum in terra: Epist. Johan. cap. v. Tractat. x. 9. Tom. III. Pars:]
[invenis illum loqui, sed de colo. Et de ipso colo ii. col. 899. ]]
at length, although in the mean time he suffer the patience and faith of his holy saints to be tried. m
ALL the rest of his preface containeth nothing else but the authority of the church, which, Smith saith, “cannot wholly err:” and he so setteth forth and extolleth the same, that he preferreth it above God’s word, affirming not only that it is the pillar of truth, and no less to be believed than holy scripture, but also that we should not believe holy scripture but for it. So that he maketh the word of men equal, or above the word of God.
And truth it is indeed that the church doth never wholly err; for ever in most darkness God shineth unto his elect, and in the midst of all iniquity he governeth them so with his holy word and Spirit, that the gates of hell prevail not against them. And these be known to him, although the world many times know them not, but hath them in derision and hatred, as it had Christ and his apostles. Nevertheless at the last day they shall be known to all the whole world, when the wicked shall wonder at their felicity, and say: These be they whom we sometime had in derision and mocked. We fools thought their lives very madgqess, and their end to be without honour. But now, lo, how they be accounted among the children of Godand their portion is among the saints. Therefore we have erred from the way of truth, the light of righteousness hath not shined unto us, we have wearied ourselves in the way of wickedness and destruction.”
But this holy church is so unknown to the world, that no man can discern it, but God alone, who only searcheth the hearts of all men, and knoweth his true children from other that be but bastards.
This church is “the pillar of truth,” because it resteth upon God’s word, which is the true and sure foundation, and will not suffer it to err and fall. But as for the open known church, and the outward face thereof, it is not the pillar of truth, otherwise than that it is, as it were, a register or treasury to keep the books of God’s holy will and testament, and to rest only thereupon, as St Augustine and Tertullian mean in the place by M. Smith alleged.
And as the register keepeth all men’s wills, and yet hath none authority to add, change, or take away anything, nor yet to expound the wills further than the very words of the will extend unto, (so that he hath no power over the will, but by the will;) even so hath the church no further power over the holy scripture, which containeth the will and testament of God, but only to keep it, and to see it observed and kept. For if the church proceed further to make any new articles of the faith, besides the scripture, or contrary to the scripture, or direct not the form of life according to the same; then it is not the pillar of truth, nor the church of Christ, but the synagogue of Satan, and the temple of antichrist, which both erreth itself, and bringeth into error as many as do follow it.
And the holy church of Christ is but a small herd or flock, in comparison to the great multitude of them that follow Satan and antichrist; as Christ himself saith, and the word of God, and the course of the world from the beginning until this day hath declared.
For, from the creation of the world until Noe’s flood, what was then the open face of the church? How many godly men were in those thousand and six hundred years and more? Did not iniquity begin at Cain to rule the world, and so increased more and more, that at the length God could no longer suffer, but drowned all the world for sin, except eight persons, which only were left upon the whole earth?
And after the world was purged by the flood, fell it not by and by to the former iniquity again? so that within few years after, Abraham could find no place where he might be suffered to worship the true living God, but that God appointed him a strange country, almost clearly desolate and unhabited, where he and a few other, contrary to the usage of the world, honoured one God.
And after the great benefits of God shewed unto his people of Israel, and the law also given unto them, whereby they were taught to know him, and honour him,
yet how many times did they fall from him! Did they not, from time to time, make them new Gods, and worship them? Was not the open face of the church so miserably deformed, not only in the wilderness, and in the time of the Judges, but also in time of the Kings, that after the division of the kingdom, amongst all the kings of Judah there was but only three in whose times the true religion was restored, and among all the kings of Israel not so much as one? Were not all that time the true priests of God a few in number? Did not all the rest maintain idolatry and all abominations in groves and mountains, worshipping Baal and other false Gods? And did they not murder and slay all the true prophets that taught them to worship the true God? Insomuch that Elias the prophet, knowing no more of all the whole people that followed the right trade, but himself alone, made his xix. complaint unto Almighty God, saying: “Ὁ Lord, they have slain thy prophets, and overthrown thine altars, and there is no more left but I alone, and yet they lie in wait to slay me also.” So that although Almighty God suffered them in their captivity at Babylon no more but seventy years, yet he suffered them in their idolatry, & following their own ways and inventions, many hundred years, the mercy of God being so great, that their punishment was short and small, in respect of their long and grievous offences. And at the time of Christ’s coming, the high priests came to offices by such fraud, simony, murder, and poisoning, that the like hath not been often read nor heard of, except only at Rome.
And when Christ was come, what godly religion found he? what Annases and Caiphases! what hypocrisy, superstition, and abomination before God, although to men’s eyes things appeared holy and godly! Was not then Christ alone and his apostles, with other that believed his doctrine, the holy and true church? Although they were not so taken, but for heretics, seditious persons, and blasphemers of Godand were extremely persecuted and put to villanous death, by such as accounted themselves and were taken for the church, which fulfilled the measure of their fathers that persecuted the prophets: upon whom came all the righteous blood that was shed upon the earth, from the blood of just Abel, unto the blood of Zachary, the son of Barachi, whom they slew between the temple and the altar.
And how many persons remained constantly in the true lively faith, at the time of Christ’s passion? I think, Master Smith will say, but a very few, seeing that Poker denied Christ his master three times, and all his apostles fled away, and one “for haste without his clothes.
What wonder is it then, that the open church is now of late years fallen into many errors and corruption, and the holy church of Christ i$ secret and unknown? seeing that Satan, these five hundred years, hath been let loose, and antichrist reigneth, spoiling and devouring the simple flock of Christ. But as Almighty God said unto Elias, “I have reserved and kept for mine own self seven thousand, which never bowed their knee to Baal;” so it is at this present. For although Almighty God hath suffered these four or five hundred years the open face of his church to be ugly deformed, and shamefully defiled by the sects of the papists, (which is so manifest that now all the world knoweth it,) yet hath God of his manifold mercy ever preserved a good number, secret to himself, in his true religion, although antichrist hath bathed himself in the blood of no small number of them.
And although the papists have led innumerable people out of the right way, yet the church is to be followed: but the church of Christ, not of antichrist; the church that concerning the faith containeth itself within God’s word, not that deviseth daily new articles contrary to God’s word; the church, that by. the true interpretation of scripture and good example gathereth people unto Christ, not that by wrasting οὗ the scripture and evil example of corrupt living draweth them away from Christ. And now, forasmuch as the wicked church of Rome, counterfeiting the church of our Saviour Christ, hath in this matter of the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of our Saviour Christ varied from the pure and holy church in the apostles’ time, and many hundred years after, (as in my book I have plainly declared and manifestly proved,) it is an easy matter to discern, which church is to be followed. And I cannot but marvel that Smith allegeth for him Vincentius Lirenensis, who, contrary to Doctor
Smith, teacheth plainly that the canon of the bible is perfect and sufficient of itself for the truth of the catholic faith;” and that “the whole church cannot make one article of the faith, although it may be taken as a necessary witness for the receiving and establishing of the same, with these three conditions, that the thing which we would establish thereby hath been believed in all places, ever, and of all men’.” Which the papistical doctrine in this matter hath not been, but came from Rome since Be-rengarius time by Nicolas the second, Innocentius the third, and other of their sort: whereas the doctrine, which I have set forth, came from Christ and his apostles, and was of all men every where with one consent taught and believed, as my book sheweth plainly, until the papists did transform and transubstantiate the chief articles of our christian faith.
Thus is an answer made unto the false calumniations of Smith in the preface of his book, or rather unto his whole book, which is so full of bragging, boasting, slandering, misreporting, wrangling, wrasting, false construing, and lying, that, those taken out of the book, there is nothing worthy in the whole book to be answered. Nevertheless in answering to the late bishop of Winchester book, I shall fully
answer also D. Smith in all points that require answer. And so
with one answer shall I despatch them both. And in some places where one of them varieth from another, as they do in many great matters, and in the chief and principal points, I shall set them together Bithum cum Bacchio, Esernium cum Pacidiano, to try which of them is more stout and valiant to overthrow the other
@ Here endeth the answer unto the Preface of Master Smith’s book, which he wrote against the defence of the true and catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour CHRIST.
! Cum sit perfectus scripturarum canon, sibique quod ab omnibus creditum est.—Ibid. cap. iii.
[ad omnia satis superque sufficiat, quid opus est ut Plerumque propter intelligenti: lucem, non]
[ei ecclesiasticze intelligentizz jungatur auctoritas? novum fidei sensum nova appellationis proprietate]
[— Vincent. Lirin. Commonit. I. cap. ii. Bibl. Vet. signando.—Ibid. cap. xxxii. p. 246.]]
[Patr. Colon. 1618. Tom. V. Pars ii. p. 238.] [? Two pairs of gladiators, equally matched.—]
[In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curan- Horace, Sat. 1. vii, 20, Cicero, Tusc. Qu. 1v. 21.]]
[dum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper,]
Varied from Other Papists
← 19. Book V. Of the Oblation and Sacrifice · Contents · 21. Matters Wherein the Bishop of →