A19563:1607
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.
Winchester.
Next Justine is Irene, in the allegation of whom, this author maketh also an untrue report, how hath not this for men of words in the forth book contra Valentinum, that the bread wherein we give thanks unto God, although it be of the earth, yet when ⟨p. 282⟩the name of god is called upon, it is not thru common bread, but the bread of thanks giving, having two things in it, one earthly and the other heavenly. This is Irene alleged by this author, who I say writeth not in such form of words. For his words be these. Like as the bread which is of the earth, receiving the calling of God, is now no common bread, but Eucharistia, consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies receiving Eucharistian, be no more corruptible. These be Irenes §1words where Irene doth not call the bread receiving, the calling of God, the bread of thanks giving, but Eucharistia, and in this Eucharistia, he showeth how that, that he calleth the heavenly things, is the body and blood of Christ, and therefore saith in his fifth book, When the chalice mixed, and the bread broken, receive the word of God, it is made Eucharistia, of the body and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is stayed and increased. And how say they that our flesh is not able to receive gods gift. who is eternal life which flesh is nourished with the body and blood of Christ? These be also Irenes words, whereby appeareth, what he meant by the heavenly thing in Eucharistia, which is the very presence of Christs body and blood. And for the plain testimony of this faith, this Irene hath been commonly alleged, and specially of Melancton to Decolampadius, as one most ancient and most plainly testifying the same. So as his very words truly alleged, overthrow this author in the impugnation of Christs real presence in the Sacrament, and therefore can nothing help this authors purpose against Transubstantiation. Is not this a goodly and godly enter of this Author, in the first two authorities that he bringeth in, to corrupt them both?