A19563:1773
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 at the least wise in this place Gelasius useth the natures and substances of bread and wine (which be Sacraments of Christs flesh and blood) to be images and similitudes in this point, not of his flesh and blood, but of his divine and humane nature, that as the bread and wine in the Sacrament remain still in their proper kinds, without violation, annihilation, confusion, commixtion or Transubstantiation, so is it in the two natures of Christs manhood and his godhead. So that Gelasius useth this similitude for the incarnation of Christ, not for the consecration ⟨p. 318⟩of the sacrament, as you would pervert his meaning.
And at the least wise in this place Gelasius vseth the natures and substances of bread and wine (which be Sacraments of Christes flesh and bloud) to be images and similitudes in this poynt, not of his flesh and bloud, but of his diuine and humayne nature, that as the bread and wine in the Sacrament remayne still in theire proper kindes, without violation, adnihilation, confusion, commixtion or Transubstantiation, so is it in the two natures of Christes manhode and his godhead. So that Gelasius vseth this similitude for the incarnation of Christ, not for the consecration ⟨p. 318⟩of the sacrament, as you would peruert his meaning.
And because you would have all your things strange (as it were one that had come out of a strange country, where he had learned a strange fashion of speech, never heard of before, or rather devised it himself) you call the colours of bread and wine, the matter of bread and wine, because §13colours only be visible after your teaching. And then must the natural property of colours be, to signify our feeding spiritual by the body and blood of Christ, that as they feed us spiritually, so do the colours corporally. And then making the argument ab opposito consequentis, ad oppositum antecedentis, as colours feed not our bodies, so Christ feedeth not our souls. This is the conclusion of your goodly new devised divinity.