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 Suspect not the iudgement of the indifferent reader so much, but that he can perceaue how vndirectly you answere to this third absurdity, and be loth as it seemeth to answere any thing at all.

[ 1] But it is no little confirmation of the catholike fayth, to see you Pa∣pists vary so much among your selues, and you alone to diuise so many thinges contrary to all the rest, and yet you be vncertayne your selfe what you may say. They say also with one accord (sauing onely Smith & you) that in the sacrament be not the qualities and quantities of Christes body. (For he is not there visible and sensible with his voyce to be heard, his colours to be seene, his softnes to be felt, his quantities to be extended, and to be locall in place, with his other accidents) so that they take away his accidents from the sacrament. Smith sayth that he is there (not natu∣rally, as you say, but against nature) with all his qualities and accidents.* 1.1 You dare neither adde them, nor drawe them away, being vncertayue whether they be there or no, and being also vncertayne whether in the [ 2] sacrament he haue distinction of members or no. But telling the truth is but iesting and rayling to you, which for lacke of answer be glad to shift of the truth as a matter of iesting.

And it is not my terming without the booke and at my pleasure, to [ 3] speake of substances without accidents, and accidents without substan∣ces, (For I speake none otherwise therein, then as it hath pleased the Papistes before to terme the same in all their bookes of that matter) but I termed this matter so vppon the papisticall bookes, as they at their pleasure deuised or dreamed without all manner of bookes written before their tyme. And the force of scripture constrayneth no man to the beleefe [ 5] of Transubstantiation, although the body of Christ were really, corporal∣ly, and carnally present, who by his omnipotent power can be present as well with the substances, as with the accidents of bread and wine, as fully is declared before.

And where you alleadge the disagreing of me with my selfe, if you

would haue taken the payne to reade some of y^e schole authors, you should haue learned, that there is no disagrement in my sayings at all. For they say, that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament hath his proper formes and quantities (as I sayd in the 47. leafe) But yet those accidents (say they) be in heauen, and not in the sacrament, as I say in this place, not varying one mite from myne other saying. But ignorance in you, think∣eth a difference where none is at all.

Now followeth the fourth absurdity.

Fourthly, they say, that the place where the accidents of bread and wine be, hath no substance there to fill that place, and so must they needes graunt vacuum, which nature vtterly abhorreth.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Smyth.