A19563:1377
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.
But to encounter directly with this author, where he opposeth by interrogation, and would be answered, whether an unrepentant sinner that receiveth the sacrament, §1hath Christs body within him or no. Mark reader this question, which declareth that this author talketh of the sacrament, not as him self teacheth, but as the true teaching is although he mean otherwise, for else how could an unrepentant sinner receive Christs body, but only in the sacrament unworthily? and how could he receive it unworthily, §2and it were not there? but to answer to this question, I answer no: for it followeth not he received him, (ergo) he hath him in him, for the vessel being not meet, he departed from him, because he was a sinner, in whom he dwelleth not. And where this author now become a questionist, maketh two questions, of Christs body, and his spirit, as though Christs body might be divided from his spirit, he supposeth other to be as ignorant as him self. For the learned man will answer, that an evil man by force of Gods ordinance, in the substance of the sacrament received in deed Christs very body there present, whole Christ God and man, but he tarried not, nor dwelled not, nor ⟨p. 226⟩fructified not in him, nor Christs spirit entered not into that mans soul because of the malice and unworthiness of him that received. For Christ will not dwell with Belial nor abide with sinners. And what hath this author won now by his forked question? wherein he seemeth to glory as though he had embraced an absurdity that he hunted for, wherein he showeth only his ignorance, who putteth no difference between the entering of Christ into an evil man by Gods ordinance in the sacrament, and the dwelling of Christs spirit in an evil man, which by scripture can not be, ne is by any catholic man affirmed. For S. Paul saith: In him that receiveth unworthily remaineth §3judgement and condemnation. And yet S. Pauls words plainly import that those did eat the very body of Christ which did eat unworthily, and therefore were guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Now reader consider what is before written, and thou shalt easily see, what a fond conclusion this author gathereth in the xcvii.