A19563:1395
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.
There is in my book a full and plain answer unto your question already made, as there is also to your whole book. So that in making of my book, I did foresee all things that you could object against it: In so much that here is not one thing in all your book, but I can show you a sufficient answer thereto, in one place or other of my former book. And in this your question here moved. I refer the reader to the words of my book in the same place.
There is in my booke a full and playne answere vnto your question alredy made, as there is also to your whole booke. So that in making of my booke, I did foresee all things that you could obiect agaynst it: In so much that here is not one thing in all your book, but I can shew you a sufficient answer therto, in one place or other of my former booke. And in this your question here moued. I referre the reader to the wordes of my booke in the same place.
And where you say, that if the bread be but a figure, it is like Manna:1 as concerning the material bread, truly it is like Manna, but as concerning Christ him self, he said of him self, Not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead, He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. And as concerning Erasmus, and the greek commentaries, neither of §4them saith upon the place of S. Paul,2 as you allege them to say. And what soever it pleaseth you to gather of these words (examining and so eating) yet S. Pauls words be very plain, that he spake not of the eating of the very body of Christ, but of the eating of the material bread in the sacrament, which is all one, whether the good or evil eat of it. And all the care is on our side, to take heed that we eat not that bread unworthily. For as the eating of the bread unworthily, not of Christ him self (who can not be eaten unworthily) hath the effect of judgement and damnation, so eating of the same bread worthily, hath the effect of Christs death and salvation. And as he that eateth the bread worthily may be well said to eat Christ and life: So he that eateth it unworthily may