A19563:1526
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.
1And where you deny that these words of S. Paul (is not the bread §12which we break the communion of the body of Christ?) declare the meaning of Christs words (this is my body,) because Christs words (say you) declare the substance, and S. Pauls words declare the use: I deny that Christs body is the substance of the visible Sacrament. For the substance of the Sacrament is bread and wine, and the thing thereby signified is Christs body and blood.
1And where you denye that these wordes of S. Paule (is not the bread §12which we breake the communion of the body of Christ?) declare the meaning of Christes wordes (this is my body,) because Christes wordes (say you) declare the substaunce, and S. Paules wordes declare the vse: I deny that Christes body is the substaunce of the visible Sacrament. For the substaūce of the Sacramēt is bread and wine, and the thing thereby signified is Christes body and bloud.
And this is notable which you say, that these words (the bread which §13we break) do signify the whole use of the Supper, not only breaking,1 but also blessing, thanksgiving, dispensing, receiving and eating, & that bread in this place signifieth common bread taken to be consecrated. In which saying it is a world to see the phantasies of mens devises, how uncertain they be in matters pertaining to God. How agreeth this your saying with your doctrine of transubstantiation? For if S. Paul, when he said (the bread which we break, is it not the communion of Christs body) meant by bread common bread, and by breaking meant also the blessing, thanksgiving, receiving and eating, then is common bread broken, blessed, received & eaten. And then where becometh your transubstantiation, if common bread be eaten in the Sacrament? And when is the bread turned into the body of Christ, if it remain common bread until it be eaten? Yet now you seem to begin some thing to savour of the truth, that the bread remaineth still in his proper nature, enduring the whole use of the Supper.