A19563:2077
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.
How is it possible, to set out more plainly the diversity of the true sacrifice of Christ made upon the altar of the cross (which was the propitiation of sin) from the sacrifice made in the sacrament, then Lombardus hath done in this place? For the one he calleth the true sacrifice,§1 the other he calleth but a memorial or representation thereof, likening the sacrifice made in the lords supper to a years mind or anniversary, whereat is made a memorial of the death of a person, and yet it is not his death indeed. So in the Lords supper according to his commandment we remember his death, preaching and commending the same until his return again at the last day.
HOw is it possible, to set out more playnely the diuersity of the true sacrifice of Christ made vpon the aulter of the crosse (which was the propitiation of sinne) from the sacrifice made in the sacrament, then Lombardus hath done in this place? For the one he calleth the true sacrifice,§1 the other he calleth but a memoriall or representation thereof, likening the sacrifice made in the lordes supper to a yeares mind or anniuersary, wherat is made a memoriall of the death of a person, and yet it is not his death indeed. So in the Lords supper according to his commaundement we remember his death, preaching and commending the same vntill his return agayne at the last day.
And although it be one Christ,1 that died for us, and whose death we remember, yet it is not one sacrifice that he made of himself upon the cross §2and that we make of him upon the alter or table. For his sacrifice was the redemption of the world, ours is not so: his was death, ours is but a remembrance thereof. His was the taking away the shines of the world, ours is a praising and thanking for the same, and therefore his was satisfactory, ours is gratulatory. It is but one christ that was offered then & that is offered now, yet the offerings be divers, his was the thing, and ours is the figure. His was the original and ours is as it were a pattern. Therefore concludeth Lombardus, that Christ was otherwise offered then and otherwise now. And seeing then that the offerings and sacrifices be divers, if the first was propitiatory and satisfactory, ours cannot be so, except we shall make many sacrifices propitiatory. And then as S. Paul reasoneth, either the first must be insufficient, or the other in vain.