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 ...

Winchester.

In the 26. leafe this author bringeth forth two sayinges of S. Augustine,* 1.1 which when this author wrote, it is like he neither thought of the third or first booke of this worke. For these two sayinges declare most euidently the reall presence of Christs bo∣dy [ 1] and bloud in the Sacrament, affirming the same to be the sacrifice of y^e church, wher∣by appeareth it is no figure onely. In the first saying of S. Augustine is written thus, [ 2] how fayth sheweth me that bread is the body of Christ: now whatsoeuer fayth sheweth is a truth, and then it followeth that of a truth it is the body of Christ, which speach bread is the body of Christ, is as much to say, as it is made the body of Christ, and made not as of a matter, but (as Emissene wrote) by conuersion of the visible creature into the substance of the body of Christ, and as S. Augustine in the same sentence wri∣teth [ 3] it is bread before the consecration, and after, the flesh of Christ. As for the second saying of S. Augustine, how could it with more playne wordes be written, then to say that there is both the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament which is Christes body, calling the same the sacrifice of the church. Now if Christes body be there, it is truely there, and in dede there, which is really there, as for there in a figure, were as much to say, as not there in truth and indede, but onely signified to be absent, which is the nature of a figure in his proper and speciall speach. But S. Augustine sayth euen as the author bringeth him forth, and yet he gaue his priuy nippe by the way thus: It is sayd of S. Augustine there be two thinges in the sacrifice, which be conteyned in it, wherof it consisteth so as the body of Christ is conteined in this sacrifice by S. Augus∣tines mynd. According whereunto S. Augustine is alleadged to say in the same booke, from whence this author tooke this saying, also these wordes following,

vnder the kindes of bread and wine which we see, we honor thinges inuisible, that is to say, the

flesh and bloud of Christ, nor we do not likewise esteme these two kindes as we did be∣fore [ 3] the consecration,* 1.2 for we must faythfully confesse before the consecration to be bread and wine that nature formed, and after consecration, the flesh and bloud of Christ, which the benediction hath consecrate.

Thus sayth S. Augustine as he is alleadged out of the booke,* 1.3 which in deede I haue not, but he hath the like sence in other places, and for honoring of the inuisible heauenly thinges there, which declare the side and re∣all presence, S. Augustine hath the like in his booke De Cat••chisandis rudibus, and in the 98. psalme, where he speaketh of adoration. This may be notable to the reader, how this author concludeth himselfe in the fayth of the reall presence of Christes body, by his owne collection of S. Augustine mynd, which is as he confesseth in his owne wordes, noting S. Augustine, that as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures, so [ 4] the Sacrament consisteth of to natures, of the elements of bread and wine, and of the body and bloud of Christ, and therfore both these natures do remayne in the Sacrament. These be this authors owne wordes, who trauayling to confound Transubstantiation, confoundeth euidently himselfe by his owne wordes touching the reall present. For he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ must remayne in the sacrament, and as truely as the natures of the manhod and Godhead were in Christ, for therupon he ar∣gueth. And now let this author choose whether he will say any of the natures, the man∣hode or the godhead were but figuratiuely in Christ, which and he do, then may be the better say for the agrement of his doctrine. The nature of the body and bloud of Christ is but figuratiuely in the Sacrament. And if he say (as he must nedes say) that the two [ 5] natures be in Christes person really, naturally, substantially, then must he graunt by his owne collection the truth of the being of the nature of the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise in the Sacrament, and therby call backe all that he hath written agaynst the real presence of Christes body in the sacrament, and abandon his deuise of a presence by significatiō, which is in truth a playne absēce as himselfe also speaketh openly, which open speach can not stand, and is improued by this open speach of his owne.

Likewise where he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ remayne in the Sacrament, the word (remayne) being of such signification, as it betokeneth not onely to be there, but to tary there, and so there is declared the sacrifice of the church, which mistery of sacrifice is perfited before the perception, and so it must be euident how the [ 7] body of Christ is there, that is to say, on the alter before we receaue it, to which aulter S. Augustine sayth, we come to receaue it. There was neuer man ouerturned his own [ 6] assertions more euidently, then this author doth herein this place, the like wherof I haue obserued in other that haue written agaynst this Sacrament, who haue by he way sayd somewhat for it, or they haue brought their treatise to an end.

It will be sayd here, how soeuer this author doth ouerthrow him selfe in the reall presence of Christes very body, yet he hath pulled downe Transubstantiation, and done [ 8] as crafty wrastlers do, falling themselues on theire backe, to throw there fellowe ouer them. But it is not like, for as long as the true fayth of the reall presence standeth, so longe Transubstantiation standeth, not by authority of determination, but by a necessa∣ry consequence of the truth, as I sayd before, and as Zuinglius defendeth playnly, and as for these places of S. Augustine may be answered vnto, for they speake of the visible nature and element, which remayne truely in the propriety of their nature, for so much as remayneth, so as there is true reall and bodily matter of the accidents of bread and wine, not in fantasy or imagination, wherby there should be illution in the sences, but so in deede as the experience doth shew, and the change of substance of the creatures in∣to a better substance, should not impayre the truth of that remayneth, but that remay∣neth, doth in deede remayne, with the same naturall effects by miracle that it had when the substance was there which is one maruaile in this mistery, as there were diuerse more in Manna the figure of it. And then a miracle in gods working doth not empayre the truth of the worke. And therfore I noted before, how S. Thomas did touch Christ after his resurrection truely, and yet it was by miracle, as S. Gregory writeth. And further we may say, touching the comparison, that when a resemblaunce is made of the [ 9] Sacrament to Christes person, or contrariwise of Christes person to declare the Sacra∣ment we may not presse all partes of the resemblance, with a through equality in con∣sideration

of each part by it selfe, but onely haue respect to the ende wherfore the resem∣blance is made. In the person of Christ be ioyned two whole perfite natures insepe∣rably vnite, which fayth the Nestorians impugned, and yet vnite without confusion of them, which confussion the Eutichians in consequence of their error affirmed, and so ar∣guments be brought of the sacrament, wherewith to conuince both, as I shall shew an∣swering to Gelasius. But in this place S. Augustine vseth the truth most certayne of the two natures in Christes person, wherby to declare his beleefe in the Sacrament, which beleefe as Hilary before is by this author alleadged to say, is of that is inward∣ly. For that is outwardly of the visible creature, we see (he sayth) with our bodely eye, and therfore therin is no poynt of fayth that should neede such a declaration, as S. Au∣gustine maketh. And yet making the comparison, he reherseth both the truthes on both sides, saying: As the person of Christ cōsisteth of God & man, so y^e sacrifice of y^e church cō∣sisteth of two thinges, the visible kind of y^e element, & the inuisible flesh & bloud, finishing y^e conclusiō of y^e similitude, y^t therfore, There, is in y^e Sacrifice of y^e church, both the Sa∣cramēt and y^e thing of y^e Sacramēt, Christes body, that which is inuisible, & therfore re∣quired declaratiō, y^t is by S. Augustine opened in y^e cōparison, y^t is to say, y^e body of Christ to be there truely and therwith, that needed no declaration, that is to say, the visible kind of the element is spoken of also as being true, but not as a thing which was inten∣ded to be proued, for it neded not any proofe as the other part did. And therfore it is not necessary to presse both partes of the resemblance so, as bicause in the nature of Christs humanity, there was no substance conuerted in Christ, which had bene contrary to the order of that mistery, which was to ioyne the whole nature of man to the godhead in the person of Christ, that therfore in this mistery of the Sacrament, in which by the rules of our fayth, Christes body is not Impanate, the conuersion of the substance of the visible elements should not therfore be. If truth answereth to truth for proportion of the truth in the mistery that is sufficient. For els the natures be not so vnite in one hi∣postasy [ 10] in the mistery of the Sacrament, as there be in Christes person, and the flesh of man in Christ by vnion of the diuinity, is a diuine spirituall flesh, and is called and is a liuely flesh, and yet the author of this booke is not afrayd to teach the bread in the Sa∣crament to haue no participation of holines, wherein I agree not with him, but reason agaynst him with his owne doctrine, and much I could say more, but this shall suffice. The wordes of S. Augustine for the reall presence of Christes body be such as no man [ 11] can wrest or wreth to an other sence, and with their force haue made this author to ouer∣throw himselfe in his owne wordes. But that S. Augustine sayth, touching the nature of bread and the visible element of the Sacrament, without wresting or writhing may be agreed in couenient vnderstanding with the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and therfore is an authority familiar with those writers that affirme Transubstantiation by expresse wordes,* 1.4 out of whose quiuer this author hath pulled out his bolt, and as it is out of his bow sent, turneth backe and hitteth himselfe on the forehead, and yet after his fashion, by wrong and vntrue translation he sharpened it somewhat, not without some punishment of God, euidently by the way by his owne wordes to ouerthrow him selfe.

In the second columne of the 27. leafe and the first of the 28. leafe, this author ma∣keth a processe in declaration of heresies in the person of Christ, for conuiction wherof, this author sayth the olde fathers vsed arguments of two examples, in eyther of which examples were two natures togither, the one not perishing ne confounding the other. One example is in the body and soule of man. An other example of the Sacrament, in which be two natures, an inward heauenly, and an outward earthly, as in man there is a body and a soule.

I leaue out this authors owne iudgement in that place, and of thée (O reader) re∣quire [ 12] thine, whether those fathers that did vse both these examples to the confutation of heretikes, did not beleeue, as apeareth by the processe of their reasoning in this poynt, did they not I say beleeue, that euen as really and as truely, as the soule of man is pre∣sent in the body, so really and so truely is the body of Christ (which in the Sacrament is the inward inuisible thing, (as the soule is in the body) present in the Sacrament? for els and the body of Christ were not as truely and really present in the Sacrament, as

the soule is in mans body, that argument of the Sacrament had not two thinges pre∣sent, so as the argument of the body and soule had, wherby to shew how two thinges may be togither without confusion of eyther, ech remayning in his nature: for if the teaching of this author in other partes of this booke were true, than were the Sacra∣ment [ 13] like a body lying in a traunce, whose soule for the while were in heauen, and had no two thinges, but one bare thing, that is to say bread, and bread neuer the holier with signification of an other thing so farre absent, as is heauen from earth, and ther∣fore to say as I probably thinke, this part of this second booke agaynst Transubstantia∣tion, was a collection of this author when he minded to mayntayne Luthers opinion a∣gaynst [ 14] Transubstantiation onely, and to striue for bread onely, which not withstanding the new enterprise of this author to deny the reall presence, is so fierce and vehement, as it ouerthroweth his new purpose ere he cōmeth in his order in his booke to entreate of. For there can no demonstration be made more euident for the catholike fayth of the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament, then that the truth of it was so cer∣taynly beleued, as they tooke Christes very body as verely in the sacrament, euen as the soule is present in the body of man.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Augustinus.
• * 1.2

  Out of the ma∣ster of the sen∣tenses and de∣crees.
• * 1.3

  The booke of S. Augustine de suis prosperi is not cōmon∣ly, had.
• * 1.4

  The master of the sentences hath these wordes of S. Augustine.