A19563:1514
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.
This is a Diamond, he saith it is no glass, he saith it is no crystal, he saith it is no white Sapphire. So Christ saying this is my body, saith it is no bread: Which plainness of speech caused Zuinglius to say plainly, if there be present the substance of the body of Christ, there is transubstantiation, that is to say, not the substance of bread, & therefore who will plainly deny transubstantiation, must deny the true presence of the substance of Christs body §8as this author doth, wherein I have first convinced him, and therefore use that victory for §9his overthrow in transubstantiation. I have showed before how Christs words were not figurative when he said, This is my body, and yet I will touch here such testimony, as this author bringeth out of one Hilary for the purpose of transubstantiation, in the xxv. leaf of this book in these words: There is a figure saith Hilary, for bread and wine be §01outwardly seen, and there is also a truth of that figure, for the body and blood of Christ be of a truth inwardly believed. These be Hilary's words as this author allegeth them, who was he saith within 350. years of Christ. Now I call to thy judgement good reader, could any man devise more pithy words for the proof of the real presence of Christs body and blood, and the condemnation of this author that would have an only figure? Here in Hilarius words is a figure compared to truth, and sight outwardly ⟨p. 257⟩to believe inwardly. Now our belief is grounded upon gods word, which is this; This is my body: in which words Hilary testifieth that is inwardly believed is a truth, and the figure is in that is seen outwardly. I take Hilary here as this author allegeth him, whereby I ask the Reader, is not this author overthrown, that Christs speech is not figurative but true and proper being inwardly true that we believe? Ye will say unto me, What is this to transubstantiation, to the reproof whereof it was brought in? because he saith bread and wine is seen. First I say that it overthroweth this author for truth of the presence of Christs body, and every overthrow therein overthroweth this author in Transubstantiation, not by authority of the church of Rome, but by consequence in truth as Zuinglius saith, who shall serve me to avoid papistry. If one ask me, what say ye then to Hilary that bread and wine is seen?