A19563:1384
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 S. Paul saith not (as you untruly recite him) that in him that receiveth unworthily,1 remaineth judgement and condemnation, but that he eateth and drinketh condemnation. And where you say, that S. Pauls words plainly import, that those did eat the very body of Christ, which did eat unworthily, ever still you take for a supposition the thing which you should prove. For S. Paul speaketh plainly of the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup, and not one word of eating of the body and drinking of the blood of Christ. And let any indifferent reader look upon my questions, and he shall see, that there is not one word answered here directly unto them, except mocking and scorning be taken for answer.
And S. Paule sayth not (as you vntruely recite him) that in him that receaueth vnworthely,1 remayneth iudgement and condemnation, but that he eateth and drincketh condemnation. And where you say, that S. Paules wordes playnly import, that those did eate the very body of Christ, which did eate vnworthely, euer still you take for a supposition the thing which you should proue. For S. Paule speaketh playnly of the eating of the bread and drincking of the cup, and not one word of eating of the body and drincking of the bloud of Christ. And let any indifferent reader looke vpon my questions, and he shall see, that there is not one word answered here directly vnto them, except mocking and scorning be taken for aunswere.
And where you deny, that of your doctrine it should follow, that one man should be both the temple of God and the temple of the devil, you can not deny, but that your own teaching is, that Christ entereth into evil men, when they receive the sacrament. And if they be his temple into whom he entereth, then must evil men be his temple, for the time they receive the sacrament, although he tarry not long with them. And for the same time they be evil men (as you say) and so must needs be the temple of the devil. And so it followeth of your doctrine and teaching, that at one time a man shall be the temple of God and the temple of the