A19563:1691
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.
Augustine useth the truth most certain of the two natures in Christs person, whereby to declare his belief in the Sacrament, which belief as Hilary before is by this author alleged to say, is of that is inwardly. For that is outwardly of the visible creature, we see (he saith) with our bodily eye, and therefore therein is no point of faith that should need such a declaration, as S. Augustine maketh. And yet making the comparison, he rehearseth both the truths on both sides, saying: As the person of Christ consisteth of God & man, so the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things, the visible kind of the element, & the invisible flesh & blood, finishing the conclusion of the similitude, that therefore, There, is in the Sacrifice of the church, both the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament, Christs body, that which is invisible, & therefore required declaration, it is by S. Augustine opened in the comparison, that is to say, the body of Christ to be there truly and therewith, 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 intended to be proved, for it needed not any proof as the other part did. And therefore it is not necessary to press both parts of the resemblance so, as because in the nature of Christs humanity, there was no substance converted in Christ, which had been contrary to the order of that mystery, which was to join the whole nature of man to the godhead in the person of Christ, that therefore in this mystery of the Sacrament, in which by the rules of our faith, Christs body is not Impanate, the conversion of the substance of the visible elements should not therefore be. If truth answereth to truth for proportion of the truth in the mystery that is sufficient. For else the natures be not so unite in one hipostasy §10in the mystery of the Sacrament, as there be in Christs person, and the flesh of man in Christ by union of the divinity, is a divine spiritual flesh, and is called and is a lively flesh, and yet the author of this book is not afraid to teach the bread in the Sacrament to have no participation of holiness, wherein I agree not with him, but reason against him with his own doctrine, and much I could say more, but this shall suffice. The words of 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 inwardly. 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. Augustine 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 ye sacrifice of ye church cō sisteth of two thinges, the visible kind of ye element, & the inuisible flesh & bloud, finishing ye conclusiō of ye similitude, yt therfore, There, is in ye Sacrifice of ye church, both the Sacramēt and ye thing of ye Sacramēt, Christes body, that which is inuisible, & therfore required declaratiō, yt is by S. Augustine opened in ye cōparison, yt is to say, ye 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 intended 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 hipostasy