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.

* 1.1Now followeth to answere to Gelasius, who abhorring both the hereses of Eutiches and Nestorius, in his treatise agaynst the Eutichians forgetteth not to compare with theyr errour in extremity in the one side, the extreame errour of the Nestorians on the other side, but yet principally entendeth the confusion of the Eutichians, with whome he was specially troubled. These two heresies, were not so grosse as the author of this [ 1] booke reporteth them, wherin I will write what Uigilius sayth.

(Inter Nestorij ergo quondam Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae non testoris, se dissipatoris, non pastoris, sed praedatoris, sacrilegum dogma & Eutichetis ne foriam & detestabilem sectam, ita serpentinae grassationis sese calliditas temperauit, vt vtrum{que} sine vtrius{que} periculo, pleri{que} vitare non possint, dum si quis Nestorij per fidiam damnat, Eutichetis puratur errori succumbere: rursum dum Eutichi∣anae haeresis impietatem destruit, Nestorij arguitur dogma erigere.) These be Uigilius wordes in his first booke, which be thus much in English. Betwene the abominable teaching of Nestorius, sometyme not ruler but waster, not pastor, but pray searcher, of the church of Constantinople, and the wicked and detestable sect of Eutiches, the craft of the deuils spoyling so facioned it selfe, that men could not auoyd any of the secrets without danger of the other: So as whiles any man condemneth the falsenes of Nesto∣rian, he may be thought fallen to the errour of the Eutichian, and whiles he destroyeth the wickednes of the Eutichian, and whiles be destroyeth the wickednes of the Eutichi∣ans heresie, he may be challenged to releeue the teaching of the Nestorian.

This is the sentence of Uigilius, by which appeareth how these heresies were both subtill conueyed, without so playne contradiction, as this author eyther by ignorāce or of purpose fayneth, as though the Nestorian should say, that Christ was a perfect man, but not God, and the Eutichian cleane contrary, very God, but not man. For if the heresies had bene such, Uigilius had had no cause to speake of any such ambiguity, as he noteth y^t a man should hardly speake agaynst the one, but he might be suspected to fauor the other. And yet I graunt that the Nestorians saying might imply Christ not to be God, bicause they would two distinct different natures, to make also two distinct persons, and so as it were two Christs, the one onely man, and the other onely God, so as by their teaching God was neither incarnate, nor as Gregory Nazianzene sayth, man deitate, for so he is termed to say.

The Eutichians as S. Augustine sayth reasoning agaynst the Nestorians, became heretiques themselues, and bicause we confesse truely by fayth but one Christ the sonne of God very God: The Eutichians say, although there were in the virgins wombe be∣fore [ 2] the adunation, two natures, yet after the adunation, in that mistery of Christes in∣carnation, there is but one nature, and that to be the nature of God, into which the na∣ture of man was after their fansye transfused and so confounded, wherupon by impli∣cation a man might gather the nature of humanity not to remayne in Christ after the adunation in the virgins wombe. Gelasius detesting both Eutiches and Nestorius in [ 3] his proces vttereth a catholike meaning against them both, but he directeth speciall argu∣ments of y^e two natures in man, & y^e two natures in y^e Sacramēt, chiefly agaynst the Eu∣tichians, to proue y^t nature of man to cōtinue in Christ after y^e adunatiō, being no absur∣dity for two differēt natures to cōstitute one person: the same two natures remayning in theyr property, and y^t natures to be (aliud,) & (aliud,) which signifieth differēt, and yet in that not to be (alius,) & (alius,) in person, which alius and alius in person, the Eu∣tichians [ 4] abhorred, and catholiquely, for so much agaynst the Nestorians, who by reason

of two natures would haue two persons, and bicause those Nestorians fansied the person [ 5] of Christ patible to suffer all apart, therfore they denied Christ conceyued God or borne God, for the abolition of which part of their heresy, and to set forth the vnity of Christes person, the blessed virgine was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, deipara, gods mother, which the Nestori∣ans deluded by an exposition, graunting she might so be called, bicause her sonne they sayd was afterward God, and so she might be called gods mother, as an other woman may be called a bishops mother, if her sonne be made a bishop afterward, although he de∣parted no bishop from her.

[ 6] And hereof I write thus much, bicause it should appeare that Gelasius by his argu∣ments of the Sacrament, and of the two natures in man, went not about to proue that the godhead remayned in Christ after his incarnation, as the author of this booke would haue it, for the Nestorian sayd the godhead was an accession to Christ afterward by merite, and therfore with them there was no talke of remayning, when they este∣med Christes nature in his conception singuler and onely by gods power conceyued but onely man. And agayne the Eutichian so affirmed the continuance of the diuine nature [ 5] in Christ after the adunation, as Gelasius had no cause to proue that was graunted, that is to say, the remayne of the diuine nature, but on the other side to proue the re∣mayne of the humayne nature in Christ, which by the Eutichians was by implication rather denyed. Nestorius deuided God and man, and graunted alwayes both to be in Christ continually, but as two persons, and the person of Christ being God, dwelling within the person of Christ being man, and as Christ man encreased, so Christ God dignified him and so diuided one Christ into two persons, bicause of the two natures so different, which was agaynst the rules of our fayth, and destroyed therby the mistery of our redemption. And the Eutichians affirming catholiquely to be but one person in Christ, did perniciously say there was but one nature in Christ, accompting by impli∣cation the humayne nature transfused into the diuine nature and so confounded. And to shew the narrow passage, Uigilius spake of Cirillus a catholike author, bicause writing of the vnity of Christes person, he expressed his meaning by the word (nature)* 1.2 signifi∣ing the whole of any one constitution, which more properly the word person doth ex∣presse.* 1.3 The Eutichians would by that word after gather that he fauored their part, so taking the word at a vantage.

And bicause the same Cyrillus vsed the word subsistence to signifie substance,* 1.4 and therfore sayd in Christ there were two subsistences, meaning the diuine substance and humayne substāce,* 1.5 forasmuch as the word subsistence is vsed to expresse the person, that as to say hipostasie: There were that of that word frowardly vnderstanded, would ga∣ther hee should say, that there were two persons in Christ, which was the Nestorians heresie that he impugned. Such captiousnes was there in wordes, when arrogant men [ 7] cared not by what meane to mayntayne their errour. These were both pernitious here∣sies, and yet subtill, and each had a meruailous pretence of the defence of the glory of God, euen as is now pretended agaynst the Sacrament. And either part abused many scriptures, and had notable apparances for that they sayd, so as he that were not well [ 8] exercised in scriptures, and the rules of our fayth, might be easely circumuented. Ne∣storius was the greate Archebishop of Constantinople, vnto whome Cirill that condem∣neth his heresy writeth, that seing he sclandereth the whole Church with his heresie, he must resist him, although he be a father, bicause Christ sayth, he that loueth his fa∣ther aboue me, is not worthy me. But Nestorius as appeareth although he vsed it ilfa∣uordly, had much learning and cloked his heresy craftely, denying the grosse matter that they imputed to him to teach two Christes, and other specialities layd to his charge and yet condemning the doctrine of Cyrill, and professing his owne fayth in his owne termes, could not hide his heresie so, but it appeareth to bee and contayne in effect that he was charged with, and therfore an admonishing was geuen by a catholike writer. Beleue not Nestorius, though he say he teach but one Christ. If one should heare aske what is this to the purpose to talke so much of these sectes? I Answere, this knowledge shall generally serue to note the manner of them that goe about to deceaue the world with false doctrine, which is good to learne.

An other speciall seruice is to declare how the author of this booke, eyther doth not

know the state of the matter in these heresies he speaketh of, or els misreporteth them of purpose. And the arguing of Gelasius in this matter well opened, shall geue light of the truth of the mistery of the Sacrament, who agaynst the Eutichians vseth two argu∣ments of examples, one of the two different natures to remayne in one person of man, and yet the Eutichians defamed that coniunction, with remayne of two different na∣tures, and called it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, double nature, and Gelasius to enconter that terme sayth, they will with their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one nature reserue not one Christ and whole Christ. And if two different natures, that is to say, soule and body make but one man, why not so in Christ? For where scripture speaketh of the outward man and inward man, that is to shew (Gelasius sayth) two diuers qualities in the same man, & not to deuide the same into two men, and so intendeth to shew there ought to be no scruple to graunt two diffe∣rent natures to remayne in their propriety, for feare that euery diuers nature should make a diuers person, and so in Christ diuide the vnity concluding that the integritie of Christ can not be but both the natures different remayning in their property Carnall imagination troubled the Eutichians to haue one person of two such differente natures remayning in their property, which the Nestorians releued with deuise of two persons, and the Eutichians by confusion of the humayne nature.

Then commeth Gelasius to the argument of example from the Sacrament of the bo∣dy and bloud of Christ, and noteth the person of Christ to be a principall mistery, and the Sacrament an image and similitude of that mistery, which sence his wordes must needes haue, bicause he calleth Christ the principall mistery, and as in one place he sayth the image and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ, so by and by he calleth the Sacrament the image of Christ. And here the wordes image and similitude, expresse [ 10] the manner of presence of the truth of the thinges represented, to be vnderstanded onely by fayth, as inuisibly present. And S. Ambrose by this word image, signifieth the ex∣hibition of truth to man in this life. And to shew the Sacrament to be such an image, as contayneth the very truth of the thing wherof it is the image. Gelasius declareth in fra∣ming his argument in these wordes,

As bread and wine go into the diuine substance, the [ 11] holy ghost bringing it to passe, and yet remayne in the property of their nature, so that principall mistery, those natures remayning wherof it is, declare vnto vs true and whole Christ to continue.

In these wordes of Gelasius where hee sayth, the bread and wine goe into the di∣uine substaunce, is playnly declared the presence of the diuine substaunce, and this diuine substaunce can signifie none other substaunce, but of the body and bloud of Christ, of whiche heauenly nature, and earthly nature of the bread and wine, con∣sisteth this Sacrament the Image of the principall mistery of Christes person.

And therefore as in the Image bee two diuers natures, and different remayning in their property: So likewise in the person of Christ, whiche is the conclusion of Gelasius argument, should remayne two natures. And here were a great daunger [ 12] if we should say that Christes body whiche is the celestiall nature in the Sacrament, were there present but in a figure, for it should then imply, that in Christes person the principall mistery, it were also but in a figure. And therefore as in the mistery of Christes person ordayned to redeeme vs, beyng the principall mistery there is no fi∣gure, but truth in consideration of the presence of the two natures whereof Christ is: So in the Sacrament being a mistery ordered to feede vs, and the image of that princi∣pall mistery, there is not an onely figure but truth of the presence of the natures, earthly and celestiall, I speake of the truth of the presence, and meane such an integrity of the natures present, as by the rules of our fayth is consonant and agreable to that mistery, that is to say, in the person of Christ perfect God and perfect man, perfect God to be in∣carnate, and perfect man to be deitate, as Gregory Nazianzen termeth it. [ 13]

In the Sacrament, the visible matter of the earthly creature in his propriety of na∣ture, for the vse of signification is necessarily required, and also according to the truth of Christ his wordes, his very body and bloud to be inuisibly with integrity present, which Gelasius calleth the diuine substance. And I thinke it worthy to be noted, that Gelasi∣us [ 14] speaking of the bread and wine, reciteth not precisely the substance to remayne, but [ 15] sayth, the substance or nature, which nature he calleth after the propriety, and the dis∣iunctiue

[ 16] may be verified in the last. And it is not necessary, the examples to be in all partes equall, as Rusticus Diaconus handleth it very learnedly ConiraAcephalos. And Gelasius in opening the mistery of the Sacrament, speaketh of transition of the bread and wine into the godly substance, which word transition, is meete to expresse Tran∣substantiation, and therfore S. Thomas expressed Transubstantiation with the same word transire, writing: Dogma datur Christianis, quod in carnem transit panis & venū in sanguinem. But in the mistery of Christes person, there is no trāsition of the Deitie into the humanitie, or humanitie into the Deitie, but onely Assumptiō of the humanity with the adunation of those two perfect natures so different, one person & one Christ, who is God incarnate, and man Deitate, as Gregory Nazianzene sayth, without mutation, cō∣uersion, transition, transelementation or transubstātiation, which wordes be proper and speciall to expresse how Eucharistia is constitute of two different natures, an heauenly and earthly nature, a mystery institute after the exāple of the principall mystery, wher∣with to féede vs with the substaūce of the same glorious body that hath redéemed vs. And bicause in the constitution of this mystery of the Sacrament, there is a transition, of the earthly creature into the diuine substaunce, as Gelasius and S. Thomas terme it, and mutation as Cypriā and Ambrose teach it, which Theophilactus expresseth by the word transelementation, Emissen by the word conuersion, and all their wordes reduced into their owne proper sence expressed in one word of transubstantiation: it can not be conue∣nient where the maner of constitution of the two mysteries be so different, there to re∣quire a lyke remainyng of the two natures, wherof the mysteries be. In the mystery of Christes person, bycause there was not of any of the two different natures either muta∣tion, transition, conuersion, or transelementation, but onely assumption of the humani∣tie, and adunation in the virgins wombe, we can not say the Godhead to haue suffered in that mystery, which were an absurditie, but to haue wrought the assumption and aduna∣tion of mans nature with it, nor mans nature by that assumption and adunation dimi∣nished, and therfore professe truly Christ to be whole God and whole man, and God in that mystery to be made man, and man God, where as in the Sacrament bicause of trā∣sition, mutation, and conuersion of their earthly creatures, wrought by the holy ghost, which declareth those earthly creatures to suffer in this conuersion, mutation and transi∣tion: we knowledge no assumptiō of those creatures or adunation with the heauenly na∣ture, and therfore say not as we do in the principall mystery, that ech nature is wholly the other, and as we professe God incarnate, so the body of Christ breaded, and as man is Deitate, so the bread is corporate, which we should say, if the rules of our faith could per∣mit the constitution of ech mystery to be taught a lyke, whiche the truth of Gods word [ 17] doth not suffer. Wherfore although Gelasius and other argue from the Sacrament, to declare the mystery of Christes person, yet we may not presse the Argument to destroy or confounde the propertie of ech mystery, and so violate the rules of our fayth, and in the authors not presse the wordes otherwise then they may agrée with the Catholique teachyng, as those did in the wordes of Cyrill, when he spake of nature and subsistence, wherof I made mētion before to be remembred here in Gelasius, that we presse not the word substaunce and nature in him, but as may agree with the transition he speaketh of, by which word other expresse transubstantiation. And agaynst the Eutichians, for to im∣proue their confusion it suffiseth to shew two different natures to be in the Sacrament, and to remaine in their proprietie and the diuine nature not to confound the earthly na∣ture, nor as it were to swalow it, which was the dreame of the Eutichiās. And we must forbeare to presse all partes of the example in the other Argument, from the person of man beyng one of the body and soule, which the Church doth professe in Symbolo Atha∣nasij of all receaued. For Christ is one person of two perfite natures, whereof the one was before the other, in perfection and creation of the other, the one impassible, and the other passible. Man is of the soule and body one, two different natures, but such as for their perfection required that vnitie, wherof none was before other perfect, of Christ we say, he is consubstantiall to his Father, by the substaunce of his Godhead, and consub∣stantiall to man, by the substaunce of his manhoode, but we may not say, man is consub∣stantiall by his soule to Aungels, and consubstantiall in his body to beastes, because then we should deduce also Christ by meane of vs to be consubstantiall beastes. And thus I

write to shew that we may not presse the exāple in euery part of it, as the author of this booke noteth vpon Gelasius, who ouerturneth his doctrine of the figure.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Gelasius.
• * 1.2

  Nature.
• * 1.3

  Personne.
• * 1.4

  Subsistence.
• * 1.5

  Substaunce.