A19563:1771
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 I pray you, what danger is it to say, that Christs body is in the sacramental bread, but as in a figure? should that imply, that his body is in his person, but as in a figure? That should be even as good an argument as this: Christ was in the brazen serpent, but in a figure, ergo he is now in heaven but in a figure. For the form of argumentation is all one in the one and the other. And if Christ be in us by virtue and efficacy, although in the sacraments representing the same (as Gelasius saith) he be but sacramentally, figuratively, and significatively, what peril is it to us? And what availeth it us his being in the sacrament, and not in us.
And I pray you, what danger is it to say, that Christes body is in the sacramentall bread, but as in a figure? should that emply, that his body is in his person, but as in a figure? That should be euen as good an argument as this: Christ was in the brasen serpent, but in a figure, ergo he is now in heauen but in a figure. For the forme of argumentation is all one in the one and the other. And if Christ be in vs by vertue and efficacie, although in the sacraments representing the same (as Gelasius sayth) he be but sacramentally, figuratiuely, and significatiuely, what perill is it to vs? And what auayleth it vs his being in ye sacrament, and not in vs.
And the two natures in the Sacrament (which Gelasius taketh for the image and similitude of the two natures in Christ) be bread and wine, which as they remain, and that truly in their natures and substances, so do the two natures in Christ. And yet be the bread and wine Sacraments of the terrestrial nature of Christ, that is to say, of his body and blood, but not of his celestial and divine nature, as you imagine. And they be called Sacraments, because they be figures, which if they were no figures, they were no Sacraments. But it is not required, that the thing represented by the figure, should be really and corporally present in the figure when the figures ordained to represent a thing corporally absent, & the figure were in vain, as Lactansius saith,1