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 ...

Caunterbury.

I Haue not proued in my booke my iiij. assertions by mine owne wit, but [ 1] by the collation of holy scripture, and the sayings of the old holy catho∣like authors. And as for your v. notes, you might haue noted thē against your selfe, who by them haue much more disaduauntage and hinderance, then I haue.

* 1.1As concerning the Catechisme by me set forth, I haue answered in my [ 2] fourth booke the 8. chapter, that ignorant men for lack of iudgement and exercise in olde authors, mistake my said Catechisme.

* 1.2And as for Bertrame, he did nothing els but at the request of king [ 3] Charles, set out the true doctrine of the holy catholike church from Christ vnto his tyme, concerning the sacrament. And I neuer heard nor red any mā that condemned Bertrame before this tyme, and therfore I can take no hinderance, but a great aduantage at his handes. For all men that hi∣therto haue written of Bertrame, haue much commended him. And seing that he wrote of the sacrament at king Charles request, it is not like that

he would write against the receiued doctrine of y^e church in those daies. And if he had, it is without all doubt, that some learned man, either in his tyme or fithens, would haue written against him, or at the least not haue commended him so much as they haue done.

[ 4] Berengarius of himselfe had a godly iudgement in this matter,* 1.3 but by the tiranity of Nicholas the 2. he was constrained to make a diuelish re∣cantation, as I haue declared in my first booke, the 17. chapter.

[ 5] And as for Iohn Wicklif he was a singuler instrument of God in his tyme to set forth the truth of christes gospell,* 1.4 but Antichrist that sitteth in gods temple, boasting himselfe as god, hath by gods sufferance preuayled against many holy men, and sucked the bloud of martirs these late yeres.

[ 6] And as touching Martin Luther,* 1.5 it semeth you be sore pressed, that be faine to pray aide of him, whom you haue hitherto euer detested. The foxe is sore hunted that is faine to take his borow, and the wolfe that is fayne to take the lions den for a shift, or to run for succour vnto a beast which he most hateth. And no man condemneth your doctrine of Transubstantia∣tion, and of the propiciatory sacrifice of the masse, more seuerely and ear∣nestly, then doth Martin Luther.

But it appeareth by your conclusion,* 1.6 that you haue waded so farre in rhetorike, that you haue forgotten your logike. For this is your argumēt: Bertrame taught this doctrine and preuailed not, Berengarius attemp∣ted the same, and failed in his purpose: Wickliffe enterprised the same, whose teaching god prospered not, therefore god hath not prospered & fa∣uoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching. I will make the like reason. The Prophete Osee taught in Samaria to the ten tribes, the true doctrine of god, to bring them from their abhominable su∣perstitions and idolatry: Ioell, Am••s, and Mitheas attempted y^e same, whose doctrine preuailed not, god prospered not their teaching among those people, but they were condemned with their doctrine, therefore god hath not prospered and fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching.

If you will aunswer (as you must nedes do) that the cause why that among those people the true teaching preuailed not, was by reason of the aboundant superstition & idolatry that blinded their eies, you haue fully answered your own argument, and haue plainly declared the cause, why the true doctrine in this matter hath not preuailed these 500. yeares, the church of Rome (which all that time hath borne the chiefe swinge) being ouerflowen and drowned in all kind of superstition and idolatry, & ther∣fore might not abide to heare of the truth. And the true doctrine of the sa∣crament (which I haue set out plainly in my booke) was neuer condem∣ned by no councell, nor your false papisticall doctrine allowed, vntill the deuill caused Antichrist his sonne and heire Pope Nicholas the second, with his monkes and friers, to condemne the truth, and confirme these your heresies.

[ 7] And where of Gamaliels wordes you make an argument of prospe∣rous successe in this matter, the scripture testifieth how Antichrist shall prosper and preuaile against saintes no short while, & persecute the truth. And yet the counsail of Gamaliel was very discrete and wife. For he per∣ceiued that God went about the reformation of religion growen in those

dayes to idolatry, hypocrisie and superstition, through traditions of Pha∣riseis, and therfore he moued the rest of the Councell to beware, that they did not rashly and vnaduisedly condemne that doctrine & religion which was approued by God, least in so doing they should not onely resist the A∣postles, but God himselfe, which counsail if you had marked & followed, you would not haue done so vnsoberly in many things as you haue done.

And as for the prosperitie of them that haue professed Christ & his true doctrine they prospered with the Papistes, as S. Iohn Baptist prospe∣red with Herode, and our sauiour Christ with Pilate, Annas and Cai∣phas. Now which of these prospered best say you? Was as the doctrine of Christ and S. Iohn any whit the worse, because the cruell tirantes and Iewes put them to death for the same?

Notes

• * 1.1

  My Cate∣chisme.
• * 1.2

  Bertrame.
• * 1.3

  Berengarius.
• * 1.4

  Wickliffe.
• * 1.5

  Luther.
• * 1.6

  The Papistes haue bene the cause why the catholike doc∣trine hath bene hundered, and hath not had good successe these late ye••es.