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] I Complayned not of your crafty handling of Chrisostome without a iust cause, for when you had alleadged the wordes that seemed to make for your purpose, you left out the wordes that make clearly agaynst you, or which wordes at the least would open all the whole matter. And yet the wordes which you leaue out, follow immediately the wordes by you alleadged.

[ 2] And where to discusse this whole matter, you say in the beginning, that Chrisostome doth not deny the visible minister, no more then he doth the visible forme of bread, here at the first chop, you vse an other pollicie, not much commendable, altering pretely the wordes of Chrisostom, making of bread the forme of bread. For Chrisostome speaketh of bread and wine, [ 3] and not of the formes and accidents of them. And if the bread be no more but the visible accidents of bread, then is the minister also no more but the visible accidents of a minister, and so is the priest nothing els, but the puppy of a priest. And then the communicants receaue no bread of the priest, but a puppy of bread of a puppy of a priest. For Chrisostome spea∣keth in like forme of wordes of the bread, as he doth of the priest, with these wordes (thinke not) Thinke not that thou seest bread, thinke not that thou receauest of a priest. And therfore if this forme of speach exclude the sub∣stance of bread, it excludeth likewise the substance of the priest. And if the priest remayne still, not withstanding that speach, then may the bread remayne also with the same speach. And if your argument be good, there is Christes body, ergo there is no bread, then may I conclude in the same forme of reasoning, there is bread, ergo there is not Christes body. And so this author maketh nothing for you, but ouerthroweth your foundation

cleane, both of transubstantiation, and of the reall presence.

But to make the mind of Chrysostome somewhat more playne, he tea∣cheth them that come to that holy mistery, with what things their minds should be chiefly occupyed, not about earthly and visible thinges but a∣bout thinges celestiall and inuisible, and not to consider so much what we see with our eies, as what we beleue in our hartes, not so much what wee receiue bodily, as what we receiue spiritually. And he teacheth not onelye what we should thinke we receiue, but also of whome we should thinke to receiue it, saying, When you come to the misteries, do not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God, but that you receiue fyre by the Aungell Seraphin. The thing that we receiue (sayth he) is not the body of God, and the person of whome we receiue is not a man, like as before immedi∣ately he sayd, that the thing which we see is not bread. Now if it be not bread in deed that is seen, then it is not the body of Christ indeed that is re∣ceiued, nor he is not a priest indeed, of whom we receiue it: And on the o∣ther syde, if it be the very body of Christ that is receiued, and a very man of whom it is receiued, then it is very bread in deed that is seene. And where becommeth then your Transubstantiation?

But to declare brieflye and playnelye the very trueth according to the minde of Chrisostome, as we see with our eyes, and eat with our mouthes very bread, and see also and drinke very wine, so we lift vp our hartes vn∣to heauen, and with our fayth wee see Christ crucified with our spirituall eyes, and eat his flesh, thrust thorow with a speare, and drinke his bloud springing out of his side with our spirituall mouthes of our fayth. And as Emissene sayd, when we go to the reuerend aultar to feede vpon spirituall meat, with our fayth we looke vpon him that is both God and man, wee honour him, we touch him with our minds, we take him with the hands of our hartes, and drinke him with the draught of our inward man. So that although we see, and eat sensibly very bread and drinke very wine, & spiritually eat and drinke Christes very flesh and bloud, yet may wee not rest there, but lift vp our mindes to his deity, without the which his flesh auaileth nothing, as he sayth himself. Further aūswere needeth not to any thing that you haue here spoken. For euery learned reader may see at the first shew that all that you haue spoken is nothing els but very triflyng in wordes.

Now followeth S. Ambrose.

* 1.1Yet there is an other place of S. Ambrose, which the Papists thinke maketh much for their purpose, but after due examination, it shall playnely appeare how much they be deceiued. They alleadge these wordes of S. Ambrose in a booke intituled De ijs qui initiantur misterijs,

Let vs proue that there is not that thing which nature formed: but which benediction did consecrate, and that benedictiō is of more strength then nature. For by the blessing, nature it selfe is also chaunged.* 1.2 Moy∣ses held a rodde, he cast it from him, and it was made a serpent. Agayn he took the serpent by the tayle, and it was turned agayne into the nature of a rodde. Wherefore thou seest, that by the grace of the prophet, the nature of the ser∣pent and rod was twise thaunged.* 1.3 The flouds of Egypt ran pure water, and so∣denly bloud began to brust out of the vaines of the springes, so that men could not drinke of the floud: but at the prayer of the Prophet, the bloud of the floud

went away, and the nature of water came agayne. The people of the Hebrues were compassed about,* 1.4 on the one syde with the Egyptians, and on the other side with the sea. Moyses lifted vp his rod, the water deuided it selfe, and stood vp like a wall, and betwene the waters was left a way for them to passe on foot. And Iordan agaynst nature turned backe to the head of his spring. Doth it not appeare now, that the nature of the Sea flouds, or of the course of fresh water was chaunged? The people was dry, Moyses touched a stone, and water came out of the stone. Did not grace her worke aboue nature, to make the stone to bring forth the water,* 1.5 which it had not of nature? Marath was a most bitter floud, so that the people being dry, could not drinke thereof. Moyses put wood into the water,* 1.6 and the nature of the water lost his bitternes, which grace infu∣sed, did sodenly moderate. In the tyme of Heliseus the prophet,* 1.7 an axe head fell from one of the Prophets seruauntes into the water, he that lost the yron, desi∣red the prophet Heliseus helpe, who put the helue into the water, and the iron swam aboue. Which thing we know was done aboue nature, for yron is heui∣er then the liquor of water. Thus we perceiue that grace is of more force then nature, and yet hetherto we haue rehersed but the grace of the blessing of the prophets. Now if the blessing of a man bee of such valew, that it may chaunge nature, what do we say of the consecration of God? wherein is the operation of the wordes of our sauiour Christ? For this Sacrament which thou receiuest is done by the word of Christ. Then if the word of Helias was of such power, that it could bring fyre down from heauen, shall not the word of Christ be of that power, to chaunge the kindes of the elementes?* 1.8 Of the making of the whole world, thou hast red that God spake, and the thinges were done, he commaunded and they were created: The word then of Christ, that could of no things, make things that were not, can it not chaūge those thinges that be, into that thing, which before they were not? For it is no les matter to geue to thinges new nature, then to alter natures.

Thus far haue I rehearsed the wo••••es of S. Ambrose, if the sayd book be his (which they that be of greatest learning and iudgemēt do not thinke) by which wordes the Papists would proue, that in the supper of the Lord after the words of Consecration (as they be commonly called) there remayneth neither bread nor wine, because that S. Ambrose sayth in this place, that the nature of the bread and wine is chaunged.

But to satisfy their mindes, let vs graunt for their pleasure,* 1.9 that the foresayd booke was S. Ambrose owne worke, yet the same booke maketh nothing for their purpose, but quite agaynst them. For he sayth not, that the substaunce of bread and wine is gone, but he sayth, that their nature is chaunged, that is to say, that in the holy communion we ought not to receiue the bread and wine, as other common meates and drinkes, but as thinges cleane chaunged into a higher estate, nature and condition, to be taken as holy meates and drinkes, whereby we receiue spirituall feeding, and supernaturall nourishment from heauen, of the very true body and bloud of our sauior Christ, through the om∣nipotent power of God, and the wonderful working of the holy ghost. Which so well agreeth with the substaunce of bread and wine still remayning, that if they were gone away, and not there, this our spiritual feeding could be taught vnto vs by them.

And therefore in the most part of the examples, which S. Ambrose allead∣geth for the wonderfull alteration of natures, the substances did still remayne, after the nature and properties were chaunged. As when the water of Iordane

(contrary to his nature) stood still like a wale, or flowed agaynst the streame to∣wardes the head and spring, yet the substaunce of the water remained the same that it was before. Likewise the stone, that aboue his nature and kinde flowed water, was the self same stone that it was before. And the floud of Marath, that chaunged his nature of bitternesse, chaunged for all that no part of his sub∣staunce. No more did that yron, which contrary to his nature, swam vpon the water, lose thereby any part of the substaunce thereof. Therefore as in these al∣terations of natures, the substances neuertheles remayned the same, that they were before the alterations, euen so dooth the substaunce of bread and wyne remayne in the Lords supper, and be naturally receiued and disgested into the body, notwithstanding the sacramentall mutation of the same, into the bodye and bloud of Christ. Which sacramentall mutation declareth the supernatu∣rall, spirituall and explicable eating and drinking, feeding and disgesting of the body and bloud of Christ, in all them, that godly and according to their duety do receiue the sacramentall bread and wine.

And that S. Ambrose thus ment, that the substaunce of bread and wine re∣mayne still after the consecration, it is most clere by three other examples of the same matter, following in the same chapter. One is of them that be regene∣rated, in whom after their regeneration doth still remayn theyr former naturall substaunce. An other is of the incarnation of our sauiour Christ, in the which perished no substaunce, but remayned aswell the substaunce of his godhead, as the substaunce which he tooke of the blessed virgine Mary. The third example is of the water in baptisme, where the water still remaineth water, although the holy ghost come vpon the water, or rather vpon him that is baptised therein.

* 1.10And although the same S. Ambrose in an other booke entituled de sacramē∣tis, doth say, that the bread is bread before the wordes of consecration, but whē the consecration is done, of bread is made the body of Christ: Yet in the same booke, & in the same chapter, he telleth in what m••••ner and forme the same is done by the wordes of Christ, not by taking away the substaunce of the bread, but ad∣ding to the bread the grace of Christes body, and so calling it the bodye of Christ.

And hereof he bringeth foure examples. The first of the regeneration of a man: the second is of the standing of the water of the red sea: the third is of the bitter water of Marath: and the fourth is of the yron that swam aboue the wa∣ter. In euery of the which examples, the former substaunce remayned still, not withstanding alteration of the natures. And he concludeth the whole matter in these few wordes.

If there be so much strength in the wordes of the Lord Iesu, that things had their beginning, which neuer were before, how much more be they able to worke, that those thinges that were before, should remayne, and also be chaū∣ged into other thinges? Which wordes do shew manifestly, that notwithstan∣ding this wonderfull sacramentall and spirituall chaunging of the bread into the body of Christ, yet the substaunce of the bread remayneth the same that it was before.

Thus is a sufficient answere made vnto iij. principall authorities, which the Papistes vse to alleadge, to stablish their errour of transubstantiation. The first of Cyprian, the second of S. Iohn Chrisostome, and the third of S. Ambrose. Other authorities and reasons some of them do bring for the same purpose, but forasmuch as they be of smale moment and waight, and easy to be aun∣swered

vnto, I will passe thē ouer at this time, and not trouble the reader with them, but leaue them to be wayed by his discretion.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Chap. 13. Ambros. de ijs qui misterijs initiantur.
• * 1.2

  Exod. 7.
• * 1.3

  Exod. 7.
• * 1.4

  Exo. 14.
• * 1.5

  Exo. 17.
• * 1.6

  Exo. 15.
• * 1.7

  4. Reg. 6.
• * 1.8

  Psal. 148••
• * 1.9

  The aunswere.
• * 1.10

  Lib. 4. de sacra∣mentis. cap. 4.