A19563:1031
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 that the reader will note also, that here covertly you have granted my first note, that Christ called bread his body, but so slyly, that the reader §2should not by your will perceive it. And where you deny my second note upon Tertullian, that Christ called it his body, because it represented his body, the words of Tertullian be these, that Christ reproveth not bread, wherein he representeth his own body. As for my third note, yet once again §3reader I beseech thee turn back and look upon the place, how this lawyer hath expounded Tertullian, if thou canst with patience abide to here of so foolish a gloss.
And that the reader will note also, that here couertly you haue granted my first note, that Christ called bread his body, but so slyely, that the reader §2should not by your will perceaue it. And where you deny my second note vpon Tertullian, yt Christ called it his body, because it represented his body, the words of Tertulliā be these, that Christ reproueth not bread, wherin he representeth his owne body. As for my third note, yet once agayne §3reader I beseech thee turne back and looke vpon the place, how this lawyer hath expounded Tertulliā, if thou canst with patience abide to here of so foolish a glose.
And where he saith, that this author Tertullian must be so understand, as may agree with the rest of his sayings, would to God you would so do not only in Tertullian, but also in all other authors, for then our controversy should be soon at a point. And it is a most shameless impudency of §5you, to affirm that the catholic church universally teacheth that Christ ⟨p. 158⟩is really, sensibly, corporally, naturally, carnally, and substantially present in the visible forms of bread and wine, seeing that you cannot prove any one of these your sayings, either by scripture or by the consent of the catholic church, but only by the Papistical church, which now many years hath borne the whole swing. Now followeth Origen, to whom I answer thus.