A19563:1416
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.
1As concerning M. Bucer, what mean you to use his authority,§7 whose authority you never esteemed heretofore? And yet Bucer varieth much from your error: for he denieth utterly, that Christ is really and substantially present in the bread, either by conversion or inclusion, but in the ministration he affirmeth Christ to be present: and so do I also, but not to be eaten and drunken of them that be wicked and members of the devil, whom Christ neither fedeth, nor hath any communion with them. And to conclude in few words the doctrine of M. Bucer in the place by ⟨p. 235⟩you alleged, he dissenteth in nothing from Ecolampadius and Zuinglius. Wherefore it seemeth to me somewhat strange, that you should allege him for the confirmation of your untrue doctrine, being so clearly repugnant unto his doctrine.
1As concerning M. Bucer, what meane you to vse his authoritie,§7 whose authoritie you neuer estemed heretofore? And yet Bucer varieth much from your errour: for he denieth vtterly, that Christ is really and substancially present in the bread, either by conuersion or inclusion, but in the ministration he affirmeth Christ to be present: and so do I also, but not to be eaten and drunken of them that be wicked and members of the deuill, whome Christ neyther fedeth, nor hath any communiō with them. And to conclude in few wordes the doctrine of M. Bucer in the place by ⟨p. 235⟩you alleadged, he di••enteth in nothing from Ecolampadius and Zuinglius. Wherfore it semeth to me somwhat strange, that you should alleadge him for the confirmation of your vntrue doctrine, being so clerely repugnant vnto his doctrine.
- 1Master Bucer.Maister Bucer.