A19563:1769
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 when he speaketh of the going of the Sacraments into §11the divine substance, he meaneth not, that the substances of the Sacraments go into the substance of God (which no creature can do) but that in the action of that mystery, to them that worthily receive the Sacraments, to them they be turned into divine substance, through the working of the holy Ghost, who maketh the godly receivers to be the partakers of the divine nature and substance. And that this was the intent & meaning of Gelasius, appeareth by two notable sentences of him, whereof one is this. Surely (saith he) the Image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ, is celebrate in the action of the mystery. The other is, that by the Sacrament we be made partakers of the godly nature: he saith not, that the Sacraments be, but that we be made partakers of the nature of Christs Godhead. And if he should mean (as you have most untruly altered both his words & sense at your pleasure) not that the godly receivers, but that the substance of bread and wine should go into the divine substance, then were not they changed into his humanity, but into his deity, and so were the bread and wine deified, or at the least made partakers of the divine nature and immortality. But forasmuch as Gelasius saith, that the two natures in Christ remain, in like case as the natures ⟨p. 317⟩of the sacraments remain, for he maketh his argument altogether of the remaining of the natures, by the verb (permanere) and the participle (permanens) then as you say that the integrity of Christ can not be, except both his natures different remain in their properties, so can not the integrity of the sacrament be, except the two natures of bread and wine remain in their properties. For else, seeing that the remaining of the natures is in the Sacrament as it is in Christ, (as Gelasius saith) then if in the Sacraments remain but the accidents and appearance of bread and wine, and not the substances of them, how could Gelasius by the resemblance of the two sacraments of bread and wine, prove the two substances and natures of Christ to remain.
And therfore when he speaketh of the goyng of the Sacraments into §11the diuine substaunce, he meaneth not, that the substaunces of the Sacraments go into the substaunce of God (which no creature can do) but that in the action of that mystery, to them that worthely receaue the Sacramentes, to them they be turned into diuine substaunce, through the working of the holy Ghost, who maketh the godly receauers to be the partakers of the diuine nature and substaunce. And that this was the intent & meanyng of Gelasius, appeareth by two notable sentences of him, wherof one is this. Surely (sayth he) the Image and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ, is celebrate in the action of the mysterie. The other is, that by the Sacrament we be made partakers of the godly nature: he sayth not, that the Sacramentes be, but that we be made partakers of the nature of Christes Godhead. And if he should meane (as you haue most vntruely altered both his wordes & sence at your pleasure) not that the godly receiuers, but that the substaunce of bread and wine should go into the diuine substaunce, then were not they chaunged into his humanitie, but into his deitie, and so were the bread and wine deified, or at the least made partakers of the diuine nature and immortalitie. But for asmuch as Gelasius sayth, that the two natures in Christ remaine, in like case as the natures