A19563:1778
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 although it be not necessary the examples to be in all parts equal (as you allege of Rusticus Diaconus) yet they must needs be like in that point,§16 wherefore they were taken to be examples, for else they were none examples. And therefore seeing that the bread and wine were of Gelasius brought ⟨p. 319⟩for examples of Christs two natures, for this intent, to prove that the two natures of Christ remain in their substance, it must needs be so in the bread and wine or else they served nothing to that purpose.
And although it be not necessary the exāples to be in all partes equall (as you alledge of Rusticus Diaconus) yet they must needes be like in yt point,§16 wherfore they were takē to be examples, for els they were none examples. And therefore seyng that the bread and wine were of Gelasius brought ⟨p. 319⟩for examples of Christes two natures, for this intēt, to proue that the two natures of Christ remaine in their substaunce, it must needes be so in the bread and wine or els they serued nothyng to that purpose.
And the transition that Gelasius meant of, is in the persons that receive the Sacraments, which be transformed into the divine nature, (as Gelasius saith) by efficacy & virtue represented by the Sacraments, but the transition is not in the bread and wine (as you and your Thomas imagine of transition) which remain in the Sacrament without substantial mutation, conversion, transition, transelementatiō, or transubstantiation. For if in the mystery of the Sacrament were transition, mutation, conversion, and transelementation of the substance of bread and wine, how could that mystery be an example of the principal mystery of Christs incarnation, to prove thereby that there is no transition, mutation, conversion, or transelementation, of the two substances of Christ in his incarnation? Doth not the remaining of substance in the Sacrament, prove the remaining of substance in the Incarnation? For how can the not remaining of substance, be an example, image, and similitude to prove the remaining of the substance? But here appeareth what it is to wrestle against the truth, & to defend an evil cause, & what absurdities wit & eloquence be driven unto, when they strive against God and his word.