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.

WHere you say that the simplicitie of fayth in a Christen mans brest, [ 1] doth not so precisely marke and stay at the syllables of Christes wordes, as I pretende, here may the world see what simplicitie is in the Papistes. For I do nothyng els but rehearse what the Papistes say, that vntill these wordes be fully ended (Hoc est Corpus meum) there is bread, and after those wordes be fully ended, there is no more bread, but onely Christ himselfe. And the same simplicitie do you declare by and by to be in your selfe, when you say that Gods worke is in one instance, howsoeuer speach, [ 2] require in vs a successiue vtteraunce. Then if God chaunge the bread in∣to Christes body in one instaunce, tell me I pray you, in which instaunce? For seyng that our promiticiation is by succession of tyme, I thinke you will not say, that the worke of God is done before the last syllable be pro∣nounced, (for then Christes body should be there before the wordes of Cō∣secration were fully finished) nor I thinke you will not deny, but when∣soeuer the wordes of consecration be fully pronounced, then is Christes body there. Wherfore by your owne iudgemēt you vary not in this matter [ 3] frō the other Papistes, but must needes say, y^t Gods secrete worke herein is measured after the prolation of our syllables, and so it is none other per∣son that teacheth to playe with syllables in this high mysterie, but the Pa∣pistes onely. And your selfe doe teach in this same place, that it is a good [ 4] lesson to say, that in the instaunce of the last syllable Gods worke is to be accompted wrought. And I finde it not in blynd Gloses, but in the chief authors of the Papistes, that the conuersion is not wrought before the whole sentence is finished, Hoc est corpus meum.

And it is no direct aunswere, but a meere cauillation and illusion, to [ 5] bryng in here the creation of the world, when God sayd (fiat lux) to be a like matter vnto transubstantiation. For Gods speach requireth no suc∣cessiō of tyme, as the speach of the Priest doth. Therfore this is but a play∣eng, to shew your subtill wit and craftie Rhetorike, whereby your spirite may be iudged, whether you go about clearely to set forth the truth, or by

darke colours and vnlike examples to hide and couer it.

[ 7] And where you question with me, going about by a subtill Sophisti∣call argumēt, to proue that Christ sayd, This is no bread, I shall make an other argument of the same forme, which shall shew how strong your ar∣gument is. S. Iohn is not the sone of y^e virgin Mary. Christ sayd to her, This is thy sonne, Ergo he sayd: This is not Iohn. The first part I am sure you will affirme in effect. The second part is Christes wordes, and as the second part in my argument is a figuratiue speach, so is it in yours, so that in euery point the argumentes be like. And therfore as myne ar∣gument is nought, so is yours also; and all that you bring in to folow ther∣of. And if I lyst to dalye (as you do) in such a matter, I could conclude di∣rectly agaynst you, that in the Sacrament is not Christes body; thus: Christes body is not materiall bread: S. Paule sayd it is bread: Ergo he sayd it is not Christes body. The first part you affirme, the secōd part S. Paule affirmeth. And therfore to auoyde this cōclusion, the onely way is, to say that Christes speach was a figuratiue speach, when he sayd, This is my body. For els by the Catholicke doctrine S. Paule, saying that it is bread, saith in effect it is not the body of Christ. Thus may you see what auayleth your Sophistication, when I am constrained Sophisticari cum Sophista, vt ars deludatur arte.

[ 7] And of like effect is your argument of yea and nay, when you say eue∣ry yea conteineth a nay in it naturally. Therfore Christ, saying it is his bo∣dy, sayth it is no bread. If this forme of Argument were infallible, then I may turne the same to you agayne, and ouerthrow you with your own weapon thus. S. Paule sayd it is bread, Ergo it is not Christes body: if the affirmation of the one be a negation of the other. And by such So∣phistication you may turne vp all the truth quite and cleane, and say that Christ was neither God nor man, bycause he sayd he was a vine & bread. And euery yea (say you) conteineth a nay in it naturally.

[ 8] And where you boast, that you haue conuinced me in the matter of the reall presence of Christes body, I trust the indifferent Reader wil say, that you triumph before the victorie, saying that you haue wonne the field, when in deede you haue lost it, and when Golyathes head is smitten of with his owne sword. But the old English Prouerbe is here true, that it is good beating of a proude man: for whē he is all to beaten backe & bone, yet will he boast of his victorie, and bragge what a valiant man he is.

[ 9] And it is an other vayne bragge also that you make, whē you say, that you haue shewed before, that Christes wordes were not figuratiue, when he sayd, This is my body. For you haue neither proued that you say, nor haue aunswered to my proofes to the contrary (as I referre to the iudge∣ment of all indifferent Readers) but you haue confessed that Christ called bread his body, & made demōstration vpon the bread, when he sayd: This is my body. How can then this speach be true, but by a figure, that bread is Christes body? seyng that in proper speach (as you say) euery yea contei∣neth a nay, and the affirmation of one thyng is the deniall of an other.

[ 10] And where you alledge (as it were against me) the wordes of Hyla∣rie, that there is both a figure and a truth of that figure, for answere here∣unto the truth is, that your matter here is gathered of an vntruth, that I would haue onely a figure, where as I say playnly as Hylarie sayth, that

in the true ministration of the Sacrament is both a figure and a truth: the figure outwardly, and the truth inwardly. For bread and wyne be sensible signes and Sacraments, to teach vs outwardly, what feedeth vs inwardly. Outwardly we see and feele bread and wyne with our out∣ward senses, but inwardly by faith we see and feede vpon Christes true body and bloud. But this is a spirituall feedyng by faith, which requireth no corporall presence. And here I aske you two questions, One is this, whither Hylarie say that the body of Christ is vnder the formes of bread and wyne, and that corporally? If he say not so (as the Reader shall soone iudge, looking vpon his wordes) then stand I vpright without any fall or foyle: for Hylarie sayth not as you do. The other question is, whither Hy∣larie doe not say that there is a figure: let the Reader iudge also, and see whither you be not quite ouerthrowen with your owne crooke, in saying that Christes speach is not figuratiue. And yet the third question I may adde also, why S. Hylarie should say, that bread and wine be figures, if there be no bread nor wine there at all, but be taken cleane away by tran∣substantiation? And where as for aunswere hereto you take the example [ 11] of Iacob, who for his hearynes resembled Esau, and was (as you say) a a figure of Christes very humanitie, you doe like an vnskilfull Mariner, that to auoyde a litle tempest, runneth himselfe vpon a rocke. For where you make Iacob (who resēbled Esau, and was not he in deede) to be a fi∣gure of Christes humanitie, you make by this example, that as Iacob by his hearynesse resembled Esau and was not he in deede, so Christ by out∣ward apparence resembled a man, and yet he was no man in deede.

And where you denye that these wordes of S. Paule (is not the bread [ 12] which we breake the communion of the body of Christ?) declare the mea∣ning of Christes wordes (this is my body,) because Christes wordes (say you) declare the substaunce, and S. Paules wordes declare the vse: I de∣ny that Christes body is the substaunce of the visible Sacrament. For the substaūce of the Sacramēt is bread and wine, and the thing thereby sig∣nified is Christes body and bloud.

And this is notable which you say, that these words (the bread which [ 13] we breake) do signifie the whole vse of the Supper, not onely breakyng, but also blessing, thankesgeuing, dispensing, receauyng and eatyng, & that bread in this place signifieth common bread taken to be consecrated. In which saying it is a world to see the phantasies of mens deuises, how vn∣certain they be in matters perteining to God. How agreeth this your say∣ing with your doctrine of transubstantiation? For if S. Paule, when he sayd (the bread which we breake, is it not the communion of Christes bo∣dy) ment by bread common bread, and by breaking ment also the blessing, thankesgeuing, receauing and eating, then is common bread broken, bles∣sed, receaued & eaten. And then where becōmeth your transubstantiation, yf cōmon bread be eaten in the Sacramēt? And whē is the bread turned into the body of Christ, if it remaine cōmō bread vntill it be eatē? Yet now you seeme to begin some thing to sauour of the truth, that the bread remai∣neth still in his proper nature, enduring the whole vse of the Supper.

[ 14]

And as touching this place of S. Paule, that God calleth things that be not, as they were, if it perteine vnto Sacrament, where Christ called bread his body, what could you haue alledged more against yourself? For

if in this place Christ call that which is not, as it were, then Christ called bread as it were his body, and yet it is not his body in deede.

[ 51] But in this your aunswere to the arguments, brought in by me out of the very wordes of the Euangelistes, is such a shamelesse arrogancie and boldnesse shewed, as abhorreth all Christian eares for to heare, which is, that three Euāgelistes telling the maner of Christs holy Supper, not one of them all doe tell the tale in right order, but subuert the order of Christes doinges and sayinges, and that in such a necessary matter of our Religiō, that the diffinition of the whole truth standeth in the order. The Euange∣listes (say you) rehearse what Christ sayd and did, simply and truely. But is this a simple and true rehearsall of Christes wordes and deedes, to tell them out of order otherwise then Christ did & sayd them? And S. Paule also (if it be as you say) speaking of y^e same matter, cōmitteth y^e like errour. And yet neuer no auncient authour expounding the Euangelistes or S. Paule could spye out this fault, and in their Commentaries giue vs war∣ning [ 61] therof. And I am not so ignoraunt, but I haue many tymes read S. Augustine De doctrina Christiana, where he sayth, that sometimes in Scrip∣ture a thing is told after, that was done before. But S. Augustine saith not that it is so in this matter, nor I am not so presumptuous to say that all the three Euangelistes, with S. Paule also, disordered the truth of the story in a matter wherein the truth can not be knowen but by the order. S. Augustine De consensu Euangelistarum saith, That that which Luke re∣hearseth of the chalice, before the giuing of the bread, was spoken by Christ after the distribution of the bread, as the other two Euangelistes report the same. And if these woordes (Hoc est corpus meum) had bene put out of the right place in all the three Euangelistes, and also in S. Paule, would not S. Augustine haue giuen warning therof, aswell as of the other? And would all other authors expounding that place, haue passed ouer the mat∣ter in silence, and haue spoken not one word therof? specially being a mat∣ter of such waight, that the Catholicke faith and our saluatiō (as you say) hangeth therof? Do not all the profes that you haue, hang of these wordes (Hoc est corpus meum,) This is my body? And shall you say now, that they be put out of their place? And then you must needes confesse, that you haue nothing to defend your selfe, but onely one sentence, and that put out of order, and from his right place, as you say your selfe, where in deede the Euangelistes and Apostles (being true rehearsers of the story in this mat∣ter) did put those wordes in the right place. But you (hauing none other shift to defend your errour) do remoue the wordes, both out of the right place and the right sense. And can any man that loueth the truth, giue his eares to heare you, that turne vp side downe, both the order and sense of Christes wordes, contrary to the true narration of the Euangelistes, con∣trary to the interpretation of all the old authors, and the approued faith of Christes Church, euen from the beginning, onely to mainteine your wilful assertions and Papisticall opinions? So long as the Scripture was in the interpretation of learned Diuines, it had the right sence, but when it came to the handling of ignoraūt Lawyers and Sophisticall Papistes, such godly men as were well exercised in holy Scripture, and old Catho∣licke writers, might declare and defend the truth at their perils: but the Papisticall Sophisters and Lawyers, would euer define and determine

all matters as pleased them.

But all truthes agree to the truth, and falsehode agreeth not with it selfe, so it is a playne declaration of vntruth, that the Papistes varie so a∣mong themselues. For some say that Christ consecrated by his owne secret power without signe or wordes: some say that his benediction was his cōsecration: some say, that he did consecrate with these wordes, Hoc est cor∣pus meum, and yet those vary among themselues: for some say that he spake these wordes twise, once immediatly after benediction, at what tyme they say he consecrated, and agayne after when he commaunded them to eate it, appointyng than to his Apostles the forme of consecration. And lately came new Papistes with their v. egges, and say that the consecration is made onely with these. v. wordes Hoc est enim corpus meum. And last of all come you and Smith with yet your newer deuises, saying that Christ spake those wordes before he gaue the bread & immediatly after the brea∣kyng, manifestly contrary to the order of the text (as all the Euangelistes report) and contrary to all old authours of the Catholicke Church (which all with one consent say, that Christ gaue bread to his Apostles) and con∣trary to the booke of Common prayer by you allowed, which rehearseth the wordes of the Euangelistes thus, that Christ tooke bread, and when he had blessed and geuen thankes, he brake it and gaue it to his disciples, where all the relation is made to the bread. Is this your faythfull hand∣ling of Gods word, for your pleasure to turne the wordes as you list? Is it not a thing much to be lamented, that such as should be the true setters fourth of Christes Gospell, do trifle with Christes wordes after this sort, to alter the order of the gospell after their owne phantasie? Can there be any trifling with Christes wordes, if this be not? And shall any christen man geue credite to such corrupters of holy scripture? Haue you put vpon you harlots faces, that you be past all shame, thus to abuse gods worde to your owne vanity?

And be you not ashamed likewise so manifestly to bely me, that I phan∣sy [ 17] that the apostles should be so hasty to drincke, or Christ had told them what he gaue? where as by my wordes appeareth cleane contrary, that they drancke not before all Christes wordes were spoken.

And where you say, that Christ gaue that he had consecrated, and that [ 18] he made of bread, here you graunt that Christes body (which he gaue to his disciples at his last supper) was made of bread. And then it must fo∣low, that eyther Christ had two bodyes, (the one made of the flesh of the virgine Mary, the other of bread) or els that the selfe same body was made of two diuers matters, and at diuers and sundry tymes. Now what doctrine this is, let them iudge that be learned. And it is worthy a note how vnconstant they be that will take vppon them to defend an vntruth, and how good memories they had nede to haue, if they should not be taken with a lye. For here you say that Christes body in the Sacra∣ment is made of bread, and in the xi. comparison you sayd, that this say∣ing is so fond, as were not tollerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.

And where you say that S. Paule speaketh not of materiall bread, but [ 19] of Christes body, when he sayth, that we be partakers of one bread, the wordes of the text be playne against you. For he speaketh of the bread

that is broken, whereof euerye man taketh parte, whiche is not Christes body, excepte you wyll say that we eate Christes bodye deuided in peaces as the grose Capernaites imagined. And S. Augustine with other olde authors do write, that Paule spake of such bread as is made of a great multitude of graynes of corne gathered togither, and vnited into one ma∣teriall lofe, as the multitude of the spirituall members of Christ be ioyned to gither into one misticall body of Christ.

[ 20] And as concerning Theodorete and Chrisostome, they say as playnly as can be spoken, that the bread remayneth after consecration, although we call it by a more excellent name of dignity, that is to say, by the name of Christes body. But what estimation of wisedome or learning so euer you haue of yourselfe, surely there appeareth neyther in you in this place, whereuppon the alteration of the name of bread, you would gather the alteration of the substaunce or Transubstantiation. Be not kinges and Emperours very men, although they be euer called by the names of there royall and imperiall dignites? Or are they therfore gods, bicause the Pro∣phet calleth them so? And who euer called you a man, sithens you were a bishop? and yet that dignity tooke not from you the nature of a man. And the Pope is a man, although he be called Iulius, or Pater sanctissimus, or Hipocrita impiissimus. So is bread still bread, although it represent the body of Christ, and be called in y^t respect (as a figure) the very body of Christ.

[ 21] And where you say, that the naming of bread by Christ and S. Paule and all other, must be understood before the sanctification, and not after, Saynt Paules owne wordes reproue this your saying most manifestly. For he calleth it bread when it is the communion of Christes body, and when it is eaten, saying: The bread which we breake, is it not the com∣munion of Christes body? And, as often as you eate this bread & drincke this cup: and who soeuer eateth the bread and drincketh the cup of the lord vnworthely: and, let a man try himselfe, and so eate of that bread and drincke of the cup: and, he that eateth and drincketh vnworthely. &c. Now these sayinges cannot be vnderstanded before the sanctificatiō, ex∣cept you will graunt that the bread was Christes body, and that it was eaten before it was sanctified. Wherfore let euery reader that knoweth any thing, iudge whether you seeke any truth in this matter, or whether you study to serch out vayne cauilations, and yet the same being cleane contrary to the manifest wordes of holy scripture, and to all approued writers. Wherfore gentle reader way S. Paules wordes, whether he call it bread after the sanctification, or onely before, and as thou findest Saynt Paule make with this mans saying (that trifeleth away y^e truth) so thou mayst beleeue him in all other thinges. Hitherto is discussed how the doctrine of Transubstantiation is agaynst gods word, now follow∣eth in my booke, how the same is agaynst nature, Wherof I write thus.

Let vs now consider also, how the same is agaynst naturall reason, and na∣tural operation, which although they preuayle not agaynst Gods word, yet when they be ioyned with Gods word, they be of great moment to confirme any truth. Naturall reason abhorreth vacuum, that is to say, that there should be any empty place, wherin no substance should be. But if there remayne no bread nor wine, the place where they were before, and where their accidents

be, is filled with no substance, but remayneth vacuum, cleane contrary to the order of nature.

We see also that the wine, though it be consecrated, yet will it tourne to vineger, and the bread will mowle: which then be nothing els but sower wine and mowled bread, which could not wax sower nor mowly, if there were no bread nor wine there at all.

And if the sacramentes were now brent (as in the olde church they burned all that remayned vneaten) let the Papistes tell what is brent. They must nedes say, that it is eyther bread or the body of Christ. But bread (say they) is none there: then must they nedes burne the body of Christ, and be called Christ burners (as heretofore they haue burned many of his members) except they will say, that accidents burne alone without any substaunce, contrary to all the course of nature.

The sacramentall bread and wine also will nourish, which nourishment naturally cometh to the substaunce of the meates and drinkes, and not of the accidentes.

The wine also will poyson, (as diuers bishops of Rome haue had experien∣ces, both in poysoning of other, and being poysoned them selues) which poysoning they can not ascribe to the most holsome bloud of our Sauiour Christ, but onely to the poysoned wine.

And most of all, it is agaynst the nature of accidents, to be in nothing. For that definition of accidents, is to be in some substance, so that if they be, they must nedes be in some thing. And if they be in nothing, than they be not. And a thousād thinges moe, of like foolishnes do the Papistes affirme by their tran∣substantiation, contrary to all nature and reason. As that two bodies be in one place, and one body in many places at one tyme, and that substances be gen∣dred of accidents onely, and accidents conuerted into substances, and a body to be in a place, and occupy no roume, and generation to be without corrup∣tion, and corruption without generation, and that substances be made of no∣thing, and turned into nothing, with many such like thinges, agaynst all or∣der and principles of nature and reason.

Notes

• The creatiō of the world.
• This is no bread.
• Iohn. 19.
• 1. Cor. 10. &. 11.
• Yea and nay.
• 2. Re. 17.
• Hilary.
• 1. Cor. 10.
• Breaking sig∣nifieth the whole vse of the supper.
• Rom. 4.
• Whether all the Euangelists told the history of the supper out of order.
• August. de con∣sensu Euange∣listarum lib. 3.
• Luc. 22. Math. 26. Marc. 14.
• The variance of the papists in consecration.
• Smith.
• Christes body made of bread.
• 1. Cor. 10.
• Chrisostome. Theodorete.
• Alteration of names vnto dignity.
• Psal. 81.
• Bread after the sanctification.
• 1. Cor. 10.
• 2. Cor. 11.
• Chap. 3. The papisticall doctrine is a∣gaynst reason.