A19563:1043
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 furthermore by this distinction (which you feign without any ground of Origene) we receive not man and God in baptism: nor in the Lords supper we be not by means of his godhead made participant of the effect of his passion. In baptism also by your distinction we receive not a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh, but in the Lords supper: nor Christ is not truly present in baptism. Which your said differences do not only derogate and diminish the effect and dignity of ⟨p. 161⟩Christs sacraments, but be also blasphemous against the ineffable unite of Christs person, separating his divinity from his humanity. Here may all men of judgement see by experience, how divinity is handled, when it cometh to the discussion of ignorant lawyers. And in all these §5your sayings (if you mean as the words be)1 I make an issue with you for the price of a fagot. And where you say that our flesh in the general resurrection shall be spiritual, here I offer a like issue:2 except you understand a spiritual body to be a sensible and palpable body, that hath all perfect members distinct: which thing in sundry places of your book, you seem utterly to deny.
and furthermore by this distinction (which you fayne without any ground of Origene) we receaue not man and God in baptisme: nor in the Lordes supper we be not by meanes of his godhead made participant of the effect of his passion. In baptisme also by your distinction we receaue not a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh, but in the Lordes supper: nor Christ is not truely present in baptisme. Which your sayd differences do not onely derogate and diminish the effect and dignitie of ⟨p. 161⟩Christes sacraments, but be also blasphemous agaynst the ineffable vnite of Christes person, separating his diuinitie from his humanitie. Here may all men of iudgement see by experience, how diuinity is handled, when it cometh to the discussion of ignoraunt lawyers. And in all these §5