A19563:556
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.
But as the fathers did eat and drink, so did also the Apostles at Christ his supper, in promise of redemption to be wrought, not in confirmation of redemption already wrought. So that if wrought and to be wrought, make the diversity of presence and not presence, then the Apostles did not eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ really present, because the redemption was not then already wrought, but promised the next day to be wrought.
But as the fathers did eat and drinke, so did also the Apostles at Christ his supper, in promise of redemtion to be wrought, not in confirmation of redēption already wrought. So that if wrought and to be wrought, make the diuersitie of presence and not presence, then the Apostles did not eat and drinke the flesh and bloud of Christ really present, because the redemption was not then already wrought, but promised the next day to be wrought.
And although before the crucifying of his flesh and effusion of his blood our redemption was not actually wrought by Christ, yet was he spiritually and sacramentally present, and spiritually and sacramentally eaten and drunken, not only of the Apostles at his last supper before he suffered his passion, but also of the holy Patriarchs and fathers before his incarnation, aswell as he is now of us after his ascension.
And although before the crucifiyng of his flesh and effusion of his bloud our redemption was not actually wrought by Christ, yet was he spiritually and sacramentally present, and spiritually and sacramentally eaten and drunken, not onely of the Apostles at his last supper before hee suffered his passion, but also of the holy Patriarkes and fathers before his incarnation, aswell as he is now of vs after his ascention.