A19563:1690
An answerAn aunsvvere
An answer by the Reverend Father in God Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and metropolitan, unto a crafty and sophistical cavillation, devised by Stephen Gardiner Doctor of Law, late Bishop of Winchester against the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament, of the body and blood of our saviour Jesus Christ Wherein is also, as occasion serveth, answered such places of the book of Doct. Richard Smith, as may seem any thing worthy the answering. Here is also the true copy of the book written, and in open court delivered, by D. Stephen Gardiner ...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 ...
London: printed by John Daye, 1580London: printed by Iohn Daye, 1580
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
It will be said here, how soever this author doth overthrow him self in the real presence of Christs very body, yet he hath pulled down Transubstantiation, and done §8as crafty wrestlers do, falling themselves on their back, to throw there fellow over them. But it is not like, for as long as the true faith of the real presence standeth, so long Transubstantiation standeth, not by authority of determination, but by a necessary consequence of the truth, as I said before, and as Zuinglius defendeth plainly, and as for these places of S. Augustine may be answered unto, for they speak of the visible nature and element, which remain truly in the propriety of their nature, for so much as remaineth, so as there is true real and bodily matter of the accidents of bread and wine, not in fantasy or imagination, whereby there should be illusion in the senses, but so in deed as the experience doth show, and the change of substance of the creatures into a better substance, should not impair the truth of that remaineth, but that remaineth, doth in deed remain, with the same natural effects by miracle that it had when the substance was there which is one marvel in this mystery, as there were diverse more in Manna the figure of it. And then a miracle in gods working doth not impair the truth of the work. And therefore I noted before, how S. Thomas did touch Christ after his resurrection truly, and yet it was by miracle, as S. Gregory writeth. And further we may say, touching the comparison, that when a resemblance is made of the §9Sacrament to Christs person, or contrariwise of Christs person to declare the Sacrament we may not press all parts of the resemblance, with a through equality in consideration ⟨p. 297⟩of each part by it self, but only have respect to the end wherefore the resemblance is made. In the person of Christ be joined two whole perfect natures inseparably unite, which faith the Nestorians impugned, and yet unite without confusion of them, which confusion the Eutychians in consequence of their error affirmed, and so arguments be brought of the sacrament, wherewith to convince both, as I shall show answering to Gelasius. But in this place S.
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