A19563:1777
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.
1And it is worthy to be noted, and double noted, how you wrangle with §15the words of Gelasius, & wrest them clean out of tune. For where Gelasius saith, that there remaineth the substance or nature of bread and wine (to declare thereby the remaining of two natures in Christ) you say that Gelasius saying may be verified in the last, and not in the first, that is to say, that the nature of bread and wine remaineth. And nature (say you) is there taken for the proprieties,2 which you call accidents. And so you make Gelasius a goodly teacher, that should so ambiguously speak of two things, when he meaneth but of one. For when he saith, that the substance or nature remaineth, you say, he meaneth that only the nature remaineth. And were this tolerable in a learned man, when he meaneth the nature to remain, & not the substance, to express it by these terms, The substance or nature remaineth? And if Gelasius mean that the substance of bread and wine remaineth not, but the natures, and then if by nature he understood the accidents (as you untruly surmise of him) and make them the Image and similitude, to prove Christs two natures, then they prove no more, but that the accidents of Christs natures remain, and not the substance, which saying, whether it be a favouring of the Eutychians, Nestorians, Ualentinians, Marcionists, Apolinaristes, and other of that sort, let the learned be judge.
1And it is worthy to be noted, and double noted, how you wrāgle with §15the wordes of Gelasius, & wrast them cleane out of tune. For where Gelasius sayth, that there remaineth the substaunce or nature of bread and wyne (to declare thereby the remainyng of two natures in Christ) you say that Gelasius saying may be verified in the last, and not in the first, that is to say, that the nature of bread and wine remaineth. And nature (say you) is there taken for the proprieties,2 which you call accidentes. And so you make Gelasius a goodly teacher, that should so ambiguously speake of two thyngs, when he meaneth but of one. For when he sayth, that the substaunce or nature remayneth, you say, he meaneth that onely the nature remaineth. And were this tollerable in a learned man, when he meaneth the nature to remaine, & not the substaunce, to expresse it by these termes, The substaunce or nature remaineth? And if Gelasius meane that the substaunce of bread and wine remaineth not, but the natures, and then if by nature he vnderstode the accidentes (as you vntruely surmise of him) and make them the Image and similitude, to proue Christes two natures, thē they proue no more, but that the accidentes of Christes natures remayne, and not the substaunce, whiche saying, whether it be a fauouryng of the Eutichians, Nestorians, Ualentiniās, Martionistes, Apolinaristes, and other of that sort, let the learned be iudge.