Falsehood

feareth the

eth to be

tried.

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 Smithe, 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 light, but searched out and discussed, the more clearly the craft and truth desir- falsehood of the subtle 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, that 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 dis

cerned from the very truth) without threshing, windowing, and fanning, searching, debating, and reasoning.

to be

their faith

selves.

As for me, I ground my belief upon God's word, wherein Faith ought can be no error, having also the consent of the primitive grounded Church, requiring no man to believe me further than I have upon God's word, but God's word for me. But these papists speak at their plea- the papists sure what they list, and would be believed without God's ground word, because they bear men in hand, that they be the upon themChurch. 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 passed, 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.

the words

Now in the beginning of the very Preface itself, when this Ephesine great doctor should recite the words of Ephesine councile, Council. he translateth them so unlearnedly, that if a young boy, that author of had gone to the grammar-school but three years, had done in the no better, he should scant have escaped some schoolmaster's Council. [1580.] hands with six jerks. And beside that, he doeth 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

Sinyth belieth the Council.

Smith belieth me twice in

The first lie.

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 one place. 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 Dr. Smyth 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 show 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 Dr. Smyth 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 Dr. Smyth hath added that of his own vain head.

The other thing wherein Dr. Smyth belieth me is this: The second he saith that I deny, that we receive in the sacrament that lie. flesh which is adjoined to God's own Son. I marvel not a little what eyes Doctor Smyth had, when he read over my book. It is like that he hath some privy spectacles within his head, wherewith whensoever he looketh, he seeth but what he list. For in my book I have written in mo than an hundred places, that we receive the selfsame 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 Dr. Smyth, 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 Chrysostome doth,) or else let him confess that my saying is true, and recant

Smyth saith that Christ called not bread his body.

his false doctrine the third time, as he hath done twice alreadyd.

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, Luc. xxii. This is my body which is given for you, which words some

I Cor. x.

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 show a book of the New Testament, saying, 'This is the 'New Testament which brought life into the world,' by what form of argument can you induce hereof, that my book that I bought but yesterday brought life into 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

d [See Strype, Cranmer, p. 171. and App. N°. 39; and Memorials, vol. ii. p. 39.]