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] THe first place of Chrysostome by me alleadged, you say toucheth not the doctrine of Transubstantiation. But you rehearse but a piece of Chrisostomes wordes. For he sayth not onely that Christ vsed wine, but also drancke wine in the misteries, and the very wine of the grape. And how could then the wine be transubstantiate, except it were transubstan∣tiate, after it was drunken.

[ 2] Now as touching the second part of Chrisostome, where he sayth, that the bread when it is consecrated, is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the Lordes body, and yet the nature of bread doth still remayne, he meaneth that the bread is deliuered from the bare name of bread, to represent vnto vs the body of Christ (according to his institution) which was crucified for vs, not that he is present or crucifi∣ed in the bread, but was crucified vpon the Crosse. And the bread is not do clearely deliuered from the name of bread, that it is no bread at all, (for

he sayth the nature of bread doth still remayne) nor that it may not be cal∣led by the name of bread, but it is so deliuered, that commonly it is called by the higher name of the Lordes body,* 1.1 which to vs it representeth. As you and I were deliuered from our surnames, when we were cōsecrated bishops, sithens which tyme we haue so commonly bene vsed of all men to be called bishoppes (you of Winchester and I of Caunterbury) that the most part of the people know not that your name is Gardyner, and myne Cranmer. And I pray God that we being called to the name of Lordes, haue not forgotten our owne baser estates, that once we were simple squiers. And yet should he haue done neyther of vs wrong, that should [ 3] haue called vs by our right names, no more then S. Paule doth any in∣iury to the bread in the sacrament, calling it bread, although it haue also an higher name of dignity, to be called the body of Christ. And as the bread being a figure of Christs body hath the name therof, and yet is not so in deede, so I pray God that we haue not rather bene figures of bi∣shops, bearing the name and title of Pastors and Bishoppes before men, then that we haue in deede diligently fed the little flocke of Christ with the swete and holsome pasture of his true and liuely word.

And where you alleadge Ciprian,* 1.2 to auoyd therby the saying of Chri∣sostome [ 4] in the epistle by me cited, you take Ciprian clearely amisse, as I haue playnly opened hereafter in the xi. chapiter of this booke, wherunto for to auoyde the tediousnes of repeting, I referre the indifferent reader, vnto which myne answer there, healpeth much that which you graunt here,* 1.3 that the word (nature) signifieth both the substance and also the propriety. For in Ciprian it is not taken for the substance (as you would fayne haue it) but for the property. For the substance of bread still remay∣ning in them that duely receaue the same, the property of carnall nourish∣ment is changed into a spirituall nourishment, as more largely in myne answer to you in that place shall be declared.

And where you would somewhat releue your selfe by certayne words [ 5] of Chrisostome, which immediatly follow the sentence by me alleadged (which wordes be these, that the bread after consecration is not called two bodies, but one body of the sonne of God) vpon which wordes you would gather your Transubstantiation, how effectuall your argument is in this matter, may appeare by an other like. Steuen Gardiner after he was consecrated, was called the byshop of Winchester, and not two byshoppes but one bishop, ergo Steuen Gardiner was transubstantiate. And a counter layd by an Auditour for a thousand poundes, is not then called a counter, but a thousand poundes, ergo it is transubstantiated. And the man and wife after mariage, be called but one body, ergo there is Transubstantiation. This must be the fourme of your argument, if you will proue Transubstantiation by these wordes of Chrisostome.

Now come we to S. Ambrose.

* 1.4At the same tyme was S. Ambrose, who declareth the alteration of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ, not to be such, that the nature and substance of bread and wine be gone, but that thorough grace, there is a spirituall mutation by the mighty power of God, so that he that worthely ea∣teth of that bread, doth spiritually eate Christ, and dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him.

For (sayth S. Ambrose,* 1.5 speaking of this change of bread into the body of Christ) if the word of God be of that force that it can make thinges of nought, and those thinges to be, which neuer were before, much more it can make thinges that were before, still to be, & also to be changed into other thinges.

And he bringeth for example here of the change of vs in baptisme, wher∣in a man is so changed (as is before declared in the wordes of Eusebius) that he is made a new creature, and yet his substance remayneth the same that was before.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Changing of names.
• * 1.2

  Ciprian.
• * 1.3

  The word Na∣ture.
• * 1.4

  Ambrosius.
• * 1.5

  De ijs `qui mi∣sterijs initiantur. cap. vlt. & de sa∣cramentis li. 4. cap. 4.