A19563:1657
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.
Chrysostom speaketh in this place of wine,1 as Cyprian did before against those that §1offer no wine but water. Chrysostom saith thus: Christ used wine, and I grant he did so. For he did consecrate that creature, and as Emissene saith, turned it in the celebration and dispensation of these mysteries. But this saying toucheth nothing the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The second saying of Chrysostom which I never read but in Peter Martyrs book, who saith it is not printed, toucheth this authors doctrine §2much, if the bread by consecration be delivered from the name of bread, and exalted to the name of our Lords body. Now consider reader, if this manner of speech by Chrysostom here meaneth an effectual naming, to make the substance of the body of Christ present, as Chrysostom in his public approved works is understanded of all to teach, then is the deliverance from the name of bread of like effect, to take away the reason of the name of bread, which is the change in substance thereof. Or if the author will say that §3by the name of bread Chrysostom understandeth the bare name, how can that stand without reproof of S. Paul: who after this authors mind calleth it bread after consecration, and so do many other by this author alleged. Here percase may be said what should I reason what he meant, when he saith plainly the nature of bread still remaineth? To this I say that as Chrysostom in this place (of an epistle not published §4by credit) saith that the nature of bread remaineth: So Cyprian that was older then he, saith the nature of bread is changed, which Chrysostom in his other works, by public credit set abroad, seemeth not to deny. Now the word (nature) signifieth both the substance,