A19563:1172
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.
Canterbury.
Caunterbury.
IT is not I that wrestle with S. Ambrose, but you, who take great §1pain to wrest his words clean contrary to his intent and meaning But where you ask this question, What can be more plain then these §2words of S. Ambrose,1 It is bread before consecration, and after it is Christs body? These words of S. Ambrose be not fully so plain as you pretend, but clean contrary. For what can be spoken either more unplayn or untrue, then to say of bread after consecration, that it is the body of Christ, unless the same be understand in a figurative speech? For although Christs body (as you say) be there after consecration, yet the bread is not his body, nor his body is not made of it by your confession. And therefore the saying of S. Ambrose that it is Christs body can not be true in plain speech. And therefore S. Ambrose in the same place, where he calleth it the body and blood of Christ, he saith it is a figure of his body and blood. For these be his words, Quod ex figura corporis & sanguinis domini nostri Jesu Christs,
IT is not I that wrastle with S. Ambrose, but you, who take great §1payne to wrast his wordes cleane contrary to his intent and meaning But where you aske this question, What can be more playne then these §2wordes of S. Ambrose,1 It is bread before consecration, and after it is Christes body? These words of S. Ambrose be not fully so playne as you pretend, but cleane contrary. For what can be spokē eyther more vnplayn or vntrue, then to say of bread after consecration, that it is the bodye of Christ, vnles the same be vnderstand in a figuratiue spech? For although Christes bodye (as you say) be there after consecration, yet the bread is not his body, nor his body is not made of itby your confession. And therfore the saying of S. Ambrose that it is Christes body can not be true in playne spech. And therfore S. Ambrose in the same place, where he calleth it the body and bloud of Christ, he sayth it is a figure of his body and bloud. For these be his words, Quod ex figura corporis & sanguinis domini nostri Iesu Christs,