66

66

"himself bound, for the vindication of the Evangelical truth, "as well as of his own writing, and for the satisfaction of "the people, not to suffer it to lie untaken notice of 9." He believed indeed, that those who would "diligently read over his book once again, would find the same not so 66 slenderly made, but that he had foreseen all that could "be said to the contrary, and had fully answered it before"hand." But he could not expect such diligence from the generality of readers, and he was anxious to take every possible precaution against the seductions of the "wit and eloquence," which, as he admitted, his adversary had displayed. He therefore hastened to prepare a reply; an Cranmer's Reply. undertaking of no great difficulty to one so thoroughly versed in the question. The authorities indeed alleged against him, were chiefly the same which are to be found in his own Note-books preserved in the British Museum and at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and which consequently, if the date of those books has been determined rightly, he had long before fully weighed. He was thus relieved from any laborious search for fresh evidence, being only required to strip off the sophistry with which that already brought forward had been disguised. And this, if the load of public business constantly pressing on him is considered, he was not slow in accomplishing. For in the following September he wrote to the Secretary of States, announcing that the printing of his Answer was finished, and requesting that the King's license for its sale might be granted with all convenient speed, because he thought "it "very necessary to be set forth for the contentation of many "which have had long expectation of the same."

This Answer was drawn up in a method that marked most strongly Cranmer's confidence in his cause. He neither endeavoured to suppress his adversary's work, as was too much

9 Strype, Cranmer, p. 255.

Vol. iii. p. 34.

$ Letter CCLXXXII.

the practice at that period, nor did he open the way to its refutation by giving his own statement of its contents, a custom which leads almost unavoidably to complaints of misrepresentation; but he reprinted, without curtailment, both Gardyner's book and his own, adding such further explanations as he thought requisite to meet the objections of his opponent. He thus laid the whole case, as it was argued on both sides, fairly before the reader, in the perfect conviction, that the more thoroughly it was examined, the more decisive would be the judgment in his favour. And few impartial persons will accuse him of presumption for such anticipations. For although Gardyner's Explication displayed, as might be expected from the character of its author, much ingenuity, acuteness, and dexterity, yet in solid reasoning, in sound learning, and in pure and forcible language, it will not bear a comparison with the Archbishop's Defence and Answert.

This inferiority may be attributed, partly to Gardyner's deficiency in knowledge, and partly to the innumerable difficulties with which the cause he had undertaken to advocate was encumbered. His keen understanding indeed seems to have been greatly embarrassed by some of the dogmas he was called on to defend. It was this embarrassment doubtless which drove him into explanations, not only inconsistent with the tenets of papists in general, but even

66

"Foxe, when employed on the translation of this controversy into Latin, complained of the style of both disputants. The Archbishop he accuses of prolixity, a fault more justly chargeable on the Answer, (with which Foxe was then occupied,) than on the Defence. Of Gardyner's style he wrote thus: "Oratione Wintoniensis nihil vidi insuavius, confragosius, aut magis spinosum, in qua nonnunquam sic vorticosus est, "ut Sibylla potius aliqua quam interprete indigeat: immo nescio an "ulla Sibylla sit tam ænigmatistes, aut Delius tantus vates, qui sensum ❝ ubique expiscari possit. In tertio libro unus est aut alter locus, ubi aquam ex pumice citius quam sententiæ lucem invenias. In periodis plerumque tam profusus vel infinitus magis est, ut bis sui oblitus vi"deatur, quam sui reperiat finem." Foxe to Peter Martyr, in Strype, Life of Grindal, p. 15.

with other parts of his own writings ". It may have been from the same feeling also that he resorted to the expedient of evading in some measure the force of Cranmer's arguments by altering their arrangement. Though he professed to follow him step by step, he yet chose to postpone his reply to the second book, on Transubstantiation, till he had first examined the third and fourth, on the Corporal Presence, and on the Eating and Drinking of Christ by the Wicked. The intent of this transposition, as the Archbishop remarked *, 66 was easy to perceive." For he "saw the matter "of Transubstantiation so flat and plain against him, that "it was hard for him to devise an answer in that matter "that should have any appearance of truth, but all the "world would evidently see him clearly overthrown at the "first onset. Wherefore he thought, that although the "matter of the Real Presence hath no truth in it at all, yet, forasmuch as it seemed to him to have some more appearance of truth than the matter of Transubstantia❝tion hath, he thought best to begin with that first.”

66

66

But Cranmer, though he thus pointed out the "marvellous sleight and subtlety" of his antagonist, did not refuse to engage him on his own terms. Conscious of superior strength, he was ready to pursue him wherever he led the way, even though the track were different from that which he had himself marked out, and which, as he still maintained, "the nature of the things required." He therefore in his Answer adopted Gardyner's order, allowing the discussions on the Corporal Presence, and on the Eating and Drinking of Christ by the wicked, to precede that on Transubstantiation. And thus the reader, instead of finding the

"These variations were so considerable, that Cranmer thought it worth while to extract them. They were appended, with some other brief notes, to the edition of the Answer to Gardyner published in 1580. See Vol. iii. pp. 27. 555.

second book in its proper place, must seek for it after the fourth.

Gardyner's But Gardyner, though defeated, was not inclined to retire the Reply. from the contest. He employed the leisure afforded by his

Answer to

continued imprisonment in making a vigorous attempt to recover the lost ground. He however no longer carried on the controversy in his own name or in English. Preferring the use of a learned language and of a fictitious name, he wrote his new attack in Latin, and published it as the work of Marcus Antonius Constantius, a divine of Louvainy. But the disguise appears to have been generally seen through, and in the reign of Queen Mary it was altogether laid aside, a second edition having been then printed, in which it was openly ascribed to "Stephen, Bishop of "Winchester, Chancellor of England." Although however he thus took the responsibility upon himself, he was even less entitled than in the former case, to be considered the sole author. "Even when a prisoner," says Peter Martyr, "he was so abundantly furnished with workmen and "amanuenses, that as they of old to the building of the "tabernacle, so here to the preparing of this book, a kind "of papistical tabernacle, all sorts contributed something. "For his book was Pandora's box, to which all the lesser "gods brought their presents. For every man, were his "learning less or more, that had any arguments for the

y It was published at Paris in 1552. The Preface to the reprint in 1554 assigns the following reason for concealing the name of the author in the first edition. "Quod libro antehac confictum nomen aut ipse addi[dit], aut a typographis ascribi est passus, in eo ejus prudentia "singularis et pietas laudari potest. Nam quod Annibali in Asia regi "Antiocho bene consulenti accidit, ut ejus non tam consilium quam "auctor displiceret, id pro temporum iniquitate sibi inter suos vir pru"dens suspicabatur, ut propter suorum temporum calamitatem, et quo"rundam præjudicatam de se opinionem, multi librum aut nunquam in "manus acciperent, aut acceptum mox rejicerent." Confutatio Cavillat. Typographus Lectori, p. 2.

popish doctrine, brought them all to him, (many whereof "were windy and trivial,) and he out of the heap made his "collections as he thought good z."

This second Confutation was not, like the former, pointed at any particular treatise. It purported to be directed ge

66

z Strype's paraphrase has been adopted here. The original passage in Peter Martyr's Preface to his Defence against Gardyner stands thus: "Taceo enim non ita me instructum fuisse ab opibus, ut tot operas et amanuenses alere potuerim, quibus Gardinerus, etiam cum in carcere "esset, ita abundavit, ut quemadmodum olim ad exædificandum Ta"bernaculum, ita hic ad ornandum istum librum, ceu Tabernaculum quoddam papistarum, omnes quicunque tum essent in illorum castris, "etiam rustici et tumultuarii milites, videantur aliquid contulisse. Est "enim hæc, ne nescias Lector, Pandora pyxis, in quam omnes etiam "Minorum gentium Dii sua munuscula congesserunt. Nam ut olim, " quemadmodum est in fabulis, Ulyssi navigaturo Æolus ventos omnes "in utrem contrusos in manum dedit, ut ille cum solvisset in altum, eis pro suo arbitrio uteretur: ita isti Gardinero, cum nescio quid contra "nos moliretur, omnia sua argumenta, satis ea quidem ventosa et levia "tradiderunt, ut ille ex acervo deligeret quicquid vellet, et sibi alieno "vento vela faceret." Defensio ad Gardinerum, Præf. p. 1. (1562.) In another part of the same Preface, Peter Martyr, adopting a metaphor introduced by Gardyner from the kitchen, wrote as follows: "Quamvis unus esset Archimageirus, tamen tot erant opera, tot manus, tot lixæ, tot calones, tantum fumi, tantum fuliginis, tantum con"fusionis in culina, ut nihil potuerit recte atque ordine administrari." Præf. p. 4. And he repeated the assertion in the body of his work : "Certe si ex tuis libris mendacia, sophisticen, et vulpinam astutiam “auferas, cætera omnia sunt aliena. . . . . . Scitur, et plusquam credas, "exploratum est, te alienis videre oculis, et alienis manibus permulta "scribere, quæ prius alieno edas nomine, non quod ab aliis conscripta "esse velis confiteri, sed quod illi captandæ gloriolæ quam misere de"peris, tempus videris non fuisse idoneum. Quo postea commutato, nomen tuum alienis laboribus ascribis: teque pavonis plumis, inso"lentissimus graculus, impudentissime jactas." Pet. Martyr, Defensio ad Gurd. de Eucharistia, p. 77. (ed. 1562.)

Strype adds that "Watson and Smith were the chief assistants." His authority probably was the Preface to the Embden edition of Cranmer's Defence, where mention is made of the passages, “ quæ sub per"sonati Marci cujusdam Antonii nomine, Stephanus ille Gardinerus, "Sycophanta impudentissimus, (auxilio cujusdam Watsoni et Smithi "Sophistarum,) scripto convellere frustra tentavit."