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 ...

Winchester.

For the other poynt in that the author approueth the iudgemēt of Petrus Lombardus in the matter, what should I more doe, but write in the wordes of Petrus Lombardus as he hath them which he these in the fourth booke the xii. chapter alleadged by the author

Post haec quaeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos, proprie dicatur sacrisiciū, vel immolatio, & si Christus quotidie, vel immoletur semel tantum immolatus sit? Ad hoc breuiter dici potest, illud quod of∣fertur & consecratur a sacerdote, vocari sacrificium & oblationem quia memoria est & repre∣sentatio veri sacrificy & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis & semel Christus mortuus in cruce est, ibi{que} immolatus est in semetipso, quotidie autē immolatur in sacramēto, quia in sacra∣mento recordatio fit illius, quod factum est semel vnde Augustin. Certum habemus, quia Chri∣stus resurgens ex mortus iam non moritur. &c. tamen ne obliniscamur, quod semel factum est, in memoria nostra omn 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fit, sclicet quādo pascha celebratur. Nunquid totiens Christus oc∣ciditur? sed tantū aniu•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ecordatio representat quod olim factū est, & sic nos facit moueri tāquā videamus Domin•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••uce: Itē semel immolatus est Christus in semetipso,* 1.1 & tamē quo∣tidie immolatur in sacram••••••••. Quod sic intilligendū est: quia in manifestatione corporis & di∣stinctione membrorū, semel tanti in cruce pependit, offerēs se Deo patri hostiā redēptionis ef∣ficacem, eorū scilicet, quos praedestinauit. Item Ambrosius. In Christo semel oblata est hostia ad salutē potes, quid ergo nos? Nonne per singulos dies offerimus? Fae si quotidie offeramus, ad re∣cordationem eius mortis fit, & vna est hostia, non multae: quomodo vna & nō multae, quia semel immolatus est Christus. Hoc autē sacrificium exemplum est illius, idipsum, & semper idipsum offertur, proinde hoc idem est sacrificium, alioquin dicetur quoniam in multis locis offertur, multi sunt Christi, non sed vnus vbi{que}, est Christus, & hic plenus existens, & illic plenus, sicut quod vbi{que} offertur vnum est corpus, ita & vnum sacrificium. Christus hostiam obtulit, ipsam offerimus & nūc, sed quod nos agimus recordatio est sacrificij: Nec causa suae infirmitatis re∣peritur, quia per ficit hominem, sed nostrae, quia quotidie peccamus. Ex his colligitur esse sacrifi∣cium & dici quod agitur in altari, & Christum semel oblatū & quotidie offerri, sed aliter tunc, aliter munc••et etiam quae sit virtus huius sacramenti ostenditur: remissio scilicet peccatorum venalium, & perfectio virtutis.

The English hereof is this. After this it is asked whether that the Priest doth, may be sayd properly a sacrifice or immolation: and whether Christ be dayly immolate or onely once? Whereunto it may be shortlye aunswered, that which is offered and consecrate of the priest, is called a sacrifice and oblation, be∣cause it is a memory and representation of the true sacrifice and holye immolation done in the aultar of the crosse. And Christ was once dead on the crosse, and there was

offered in himselfe, but he is dayly immolate in the sacrament, because in the sacra∣ment there is made a memory of that is once done. Whereupon S. Augustine. We are assured that christ rising from death dieth not now, &c. Yet least we should forget that is once done, in our memory euery yere is done, videl, as often as the pascha, is cele∣brate, is Christ as often killed? onely a yerely remembraunce, representeth that was [ 3] once done, and so causeth vs to be moued as though we saw our Lord on the crosse. Also Christ was once offered in himselfe, and is offered dayly in the sacrament, which is thus to be vnderstāded, that in open shewyng of his body and distinction of his mē∣bers he did hang onely once vpon the crosse, offering himselfe to God the father an host of redemption effectuall for them whome he hath predestinate. Also S. Ambrose: In Christ the host was once offred being of power to helth, what do we then? doe we not offer euery day? and if we offer euery day, it is done to the remembraunce of the death of him, and the host is one, not many. How one and not many? because Christ is once offered, this sacrifice is the example of that, the same, and alwayes the same is offered, therfore this is the same sacrifice. Or els it may be sayd, because offering is in many places, there be many Christes, which is not so, but one Christ is ech where, and here ful, and there full, so as that which is offered euery where, is one body, and so also one sacrifice: Christ hath offered the host, we do offer the same also now: But what we do, is a remembraunce of the sacrifice. Nor there is no cause found of the owne inua∣lidity, because it perfiteth the man, but of vs, because we dayly sinne: Hereof it is ga∣thered that to be a sacrifice and to be so called that is done in the alter, and Christ to be once offered and dayly offered, but otherwise then, and otherwise now, and also it is shewed what is the vertue of this Sacrament, that is to say, remission of veniall [ 4] sinne and perfection of vertue.

Thus writeth Petrus Lombardus, whose iudgement because this author alloweth, he must graunt that the visible church hath Priestes in ministery, that offer dayly Chri∣stes most precious body and bloud in mistery, and then must it be graunted, that Christ [ 1] so offered himselfe in his supper. For otherwise then he did cannot now be done. And by the iudgement of Petrus Lombardus, the same most precious body and bloud is offered [ 3] dayly, that once suffered and was once shed. And also by the same Petrus iudgement, which he confirmeth with the saying of other, this dayly offering by the priest is daylye offered for sin, not for any imperfection in the first offering, but because wee daylye fall. And by Petrus iudgement appeareth also how the priest hath a speciall functiō to make [ 3] this offering, by whose mouth god is prayed vnto (as Hesychius sayth) to make this sa∣crifice, which Emissene noteth to be wrought by the great power of the inuisible priest. By Petrus Lombardus also, if his iudgement be true (as it is in deed, and the author cō∣fesseth it so to be) that is done in the aultar is not onely called a sacrifice, but also is so, & the same that is offered once and dayly to be the same but otherwise then and otherwise now. But to the purpose, if the author will stand to the iudgement of Petrus Lombar∣dus, all his fift booke of this treaty is clerely defaced. And if he will now call backe that agayne, he might more compendeously do the same in the whole treatise, being so far o∣uerseene as he is therein.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Immolatur. 71 ante.