A19563:1750
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.
And therefore as in the Image be two divers natures, and different remaining in their property: So likewise in the person of Christ, which is the conclusion of Gelasius argument, should remain two natures. And here were a great danger §12if we should say that Christs body which is the celestial nature in the Sacrament, were there present but in a figure, for it should then imply, that in Christs person the principal mystery, it were also but in a figure. And therefore as in the mystery of Christs person ordained to redeem us, being the principal mystery there is no figure, but truth in consideration of the presence of the two natures whereof Christ is: So in the Sacrament being a mystery ordered to feed us, and the image of that principal mystery, there is not an only figure but truth of the presence of the natures, earthly and celestial, I speak of the truth of the presence, and mean such an integrity of the natures present, as by the rules of our faith is consonant and agreeable to that mystery, that is to say, in the person of Christ perfect God and perfect man, perfect God to be incarnate, and perfect man to be deitate, as Gregory Nazianzen termeth it.
And therefore as in the Image bee two diuers natures, and different remayning in their property: So likewise in the person of Christ, whiche is the conclusion of Gelasius argument, should remayne two natures. And here were a great daunger §12if we should say that Christes body whiche is the celestiall nature in the Sacrament, were there present but in a figure, for it should then imply, that in Christes person the principall mistery, it were also but in a figure. And therefore as in the mistery of Christes person ordayned to redeeme vs, beyng the principall mistery there is no figure, but truth in consideration of the presence of the two natures whereof Christ is: So in the Sacrament being a mistery ordered to feede vs, and the image of that principall mistery, there is not an onely figure but truth of the presence of the natures, earthly and celestiall, I speake of the truth of the presence, and meane such an integrity of the natures present, as by the rules of our fayth is consonant and agreable to that mistery, that is to say, in the person of Christ perfect God and perfect man, perfect God to be incarnate, and perfect man to be deitate, as Gregory Nazianzen termeth it.