A19563:1197
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.
Winchester.
This author noteth in Chrysostom two places,1 and bringeth them forth: and in handling the first place, declareth himself to trifle in so great a matter, evidently to his own reproof. For where in the second book of his work, entreating transubstantiation, he would the same words of Chrysostom by this form of speech in the negative should not deny precisely. And when Chrysostom saith, Do not think that you by man receive the body of God, but that we should not consider man in the receiving of it. Here this author doth allege these words, and reasoneth of them as though they were terms of mere denial. But I would ask of this author this question, If Chrysostoms faith had been that we receive not the body of God in the Sacrament verily, why should he use words idly to entreat, of whom we received the body of God, which after this authors doctrine we receive not at all but in figure? and no body at all which is of Christs humanity being Christ, as this author teacheth spiritually, that is, by his divine nature in him only that worthily receiveth, and in the very Sacrament as he concludeth in this book only figuratively. Turn back reader to the 36. leaf in the authors book and read it with this, and so consider upon what principle here is made an (Ergo.) I will answer that place when I speak of Transubstantiation, which shall be after answered to the third and fourth book, as the natural order of the matter requireth.
This author noteth in Chrisostome two places,1 and bringeth them forth: and in handling the first place, declareth himselfe to trifle in so great a matter, euidently to his owne reprofe. For where in the second booke of his worke, entreating transubstantiation, he would the same wordes of Chrisostome by this forme of spech in the negatiue should not deny precisely. And when Chrisostome sayth, Do not think that you by man receiue the body of God, but that we should not consider man in the receiuing of it. Here this author doth alleage these wordes, and reasoneth of them as though they were termes of mere deniall. But I would aske of this author this question, If Chrysostomes fayth had bene that we receaue not the body of God in the Sacrament verily, why should he vse wordes idlely to entreate, of whom we receiued the body of God, which after this authors doctrine we receaue not at all but in figure? and no body at all which is of Christes humanity being Christ, as this author teacheth spiritually, that is, by his diuine nature in him onely that worthely receaueth, and in the very Sacrament as he concludeth in this booke onely fyguratiuely. Turne back reader to the 36. leafe in the authors booke and read it with this, and so consyder vpon what principle here is made an (Ergo.) I will aunswere that place when I speake of Transubstantiation, which shall be after answered to the third and fourth booke, as the naturall order of the matter requireth.