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.

[ 1] WHere you say that in the old church y^e truth of this mistery was neuer impugned opēly, you say herin very truly, for y^e truth which I haue set forth, was openly receiued and taught of al that were catholick without coutradiction, vntil the papists diuised a contrary doc∣trine. And I say further, that y^e vntruth which you teach, was not at that time improued of no man, neither openly nor priuily. For how could your doctrine be impugned in the olde church, which was then neither taught nor knowen?

And as concerning Bertrame,* 1.1 he did not write secretly, for he was re∣quired by king Charles to write in this matter, and wrot therin as the doc¦trine of the Church was at that tyme, or els some man would haue repre∣hended him, which neuer none did before you, but make mention of his workes vnto his great prayse and commendation.* 1.2 And the Massalians were not reproued for saying, that corporall eating doth neither good nor hurt, neither Epiphanius, nor of S. Augustine, nor Theodoret, nor of any other auntient author that I haue red. Mary that the sacraments do nei∣ther good nor hurt, & namely Baptisme, is layd vnto y^e Massaliās charge and yet the corporall receiuing without y^e spirituall auaileth nothing, but rather hurteth very much, as appeared in Iudas and Simon Magus. And as for the three heresies of the Massalians, Anthropomorphites, and Nestorians, I allow none of them, although you report thē otherwise thē either Epiphanius or S. Augustine doth.

[ 2] And wherē you say that I would haue taken for a supposall, that Basil Nazianzene and Nissene should take the sacrament to be figuratiue only still you charge me vntruly with that I nether say nor think.

For I knowledge (as al good christen mē do) that almighty God wor∣keth effectually with his sacraments.

[ 3] And where you report me to say an other vntruth, that of a figure may be spoken the same thing, that may be spoken of the thing it self, that I say true therin witnesseth plainly S. Augustin and Cyprian. And yet I speake not vniuersally, nor these examples that you bring make anything agaynst my sayings. For the first example may be sayd of the figure, if D. Smith say true.* 1.3 And because you .ii. write both agaynst my book, and a gree so euil one with an other (as it is hard fo vntrue sayers to agree in one tale (ther¦fore in this poynt I commit you togither, to see which of you is most vali∣ant [ 4] champion. And as for your other iii. examples, it is not true of y^e thing it selfe, that Christes body is present in the sacrament by miracle or aboue nature, although by miracle and aboue nature he is in the ministration of his holy supper, amōg them that godly be fed therat. And thus be your fri∣uolous cauillations aunswered.

[ 5] And where you say that I am ignorant what this word (corporal) mea¦neth surely then I haue a very grosse wit,* 1.4 that am ignorant in that thing,

which euery plough man knoweth. But you make so fine a cōstruction of this word (corporall) that neither you can tell what you meane your self, nor no man can vnderstand you, as I haue opened before in the discussing of Cyrils mind.

And as for the reuerent vse of mans mouth in the Lordes holy supper, [ 6] the bread and wine outwardly must be reuerently receaued w^t the mouth because of the things therby represented, which by fayth be receaued in∣wardly in our hartes & mindes, & not eatē with our mouthes, as you vn∣truely allege S. Paule to say, whose wordes be of the eating of the sacra¦mentall bread, and not of the body of Christ. Now followeth next mine aunswer to Eusebius Emissenus, who is as it were your chefe trust and shot ancre.

* 1.5Likewise Eusebius Emissenus is shortly aunswered vnto: for he speaketh not of any reall and corporall conuersion of bread and wine vnto Christs bo∣dy and bloud: nor of any corporal and real eating and drinking of the same, but he speaketh of a sacramentall conuersion of bread and wine, and of a spiritu∣all eating and drinking of the body and bloud. After which sort Christ is aswell present in baptisme (as the same Eusebius playnly there declareth) as he is in the Lordes table: Which is not carnally and corporally, but by fayth and spiri¦tually. But of this author is spoken before more at large in the matter of tran∣substatiation.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Bertrame.
• * 1.2

  Messaliani. De is habetur in histo trip. lib. 7.•• 11. et in Theo∣doreto li. 4. cap. 11.
• * 1.3

  Smyth.
• * 1.4

  Corporali
• * 1.5

  The aunswere to Emissenus.