A19563:1864
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.
For as in the former sentence, Chrysostom saith, that we may not think what we see bread wine: so in the second sentence he saith, that we may not think that we receive the body of Christ of the priests hands. Wherefore if upon the second sentence (as the Papists them selves will say) it cannot be truly gathered, that in the holy communion there is not the body of Christ ministered by the priest: then must they confess also, that it cannot be well and truly gathered upon the first sentence, that there is no bread nor wine.
For as in the former sentence, Chrisostome sayth, that we may not thinke what we see bread wine: so in the second sentence he sayth, that we may not thinke that we receaue the body of Christ of the priestes handes. Wherfore if vpon the second sentence (as the Papists them selues will say) it cannot be truly gathered, that in the holy communion there is not the body of Christ ministred by the priest: then must they confesse also, that it cannot be well and truely gathered vpon the first sentence, that there is no bread nor wine.
But there be all these things together in the holy communion, Christ himself spiritually eaten and drunken, and nourishing the right believers: the bread and wine as a sacrament declaring the same: and the priest as a minister thereof. Wherefore S. John Chrysostom meant not absolutely, to deny that there is bread and wine or to deny utterly the priest and the body of Christ to be there, but he useth a speech which is no pure Negative, but a Negative by comparison.1
But there be all these thinges togither in the holy communion, Christ himselfe spiritually eaten and drunken, and nourishing the right beleuers: the bread and wine as a sacrament declaring the same: and the priest as a minister therof. Wherfore S. Ihon Chrisostome ment not absolutely, to deny that there is bread and wine or to deny vtterly the priest and the body of Christ to be there, but he vseth a speach which is no pure Negatiue, but a Negatiue by comparison.