A19563:1735
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.
But when you promise to come to the purpose, (as to say the truth, all that you said before is clearly without purpose) but when you promise (I say) now at length to come to the purpose, your answer is nothing to the purpose of S. Chrysostoms mind: for he made not his resemblance (as you say he did) only to show the remaining of the accidents (which you call the properties) but to show the remaining of the substances, with all the natural properties thereof. That as Christ had here in earth his divinity and humanity, remaining every of them with his natural properties, the substance of his godhead, being a nature single without composition, without conversion invisible, immortal, incircumscriptible, incomprehensible, and such like, (for these be Chrysostoms own words) and the substance of his humanity, being a feeble nature, subject to hunger, thirst, weeping, fear, sweating, and such passions, so is it in the bread and Christs body, that the bread after sanctification or consecration (as you call it) remaineth in his substance that it had before: and likewise doth the body of Christ remain still in heaven in his very true substance, whereof the bread is a Sacrament and figure. For else, if the substance of the bread remained not, how could Chrysostom bring it for a resemblance, to prove that the substance of Christs humanity remaineth with his divinity? Mary this that you say, had been a gay lesson for the Manichees, to say that there appeareth bread by all the accidents thereof, and yet is none in deed, that then by this similitude they might say likewise, that Christ appeared a man by all the accidences and properties of a man, and yet he was none in deed. And to make an end of this author, your vain comment will not serve you, to call the accidents of bread, the nature of bread, except you will allow the same in the Manichees, that the nature of Christs body, is nothing else but the accidences thereof.
But when you promise to come to the purpose, (as to say the truth, all that you sayd before is clearly without purpose) but when you promise (I say) now at length to come to the purpose, your answere is nothing to the purpose of S. Chrisostoms mynd: for he made not his resemblance (as you say he did) onely to shew the remayning of the accidents (which you call the properties) but to shew the remayning of the substances, with all the naturall properties therof. That as Christ had here in earth his diuinity and humanity, remayning euery of them with his naturall properties, the substance of his godhead, being a nature single without composition, without conuersion inuisible, immortall, incircumscriptible, incomprehensible, and such like, (for these be Chrisostomes owne wordes) and the substance of his humanity, being a feble nature, subiect to hunger, thyrst, weeping, feare, sweating, and such passions, so is it in the bread and Christes body, that the bread after sanctification or consecration (as you call it) remayneth in his substance that it had before: and likewise doth the body of Christ remayne still in heauen in his very true substance, wherof the bread is a Sacrament and figure. For els, if the substance of the bread remayned not, how could Chrisostome bring it for a resemblance, to proue that the substance of Christes humanity remayneth with his diuinity? Mary this that you say, had bene a gay lesson for the Manichees, to say that there appeareth bread by all the accidents therof, and yet is none in deede, that then by this similitude they might say likewise, that Christ appeared a man by all the accidences and properties of a man, and yet he was none in deede. And to make an ende of this author, your vayne comment will not serue you, to call the accidents of bread, the nature of bread, except you will alow the same in the Manichees, that the nature of Christes body, is nothing els but the accidences therof.