A19563:1885
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.
Canterbury.
Caunterbury.
I Complained not of your crafty handling of Chrysostom without a just cause, for when you had alleged the words that seemed to make for your purpose, you left out the words that make clearly against you, or which words at the least would open all the whole matter. And yet the words which you leave out, follow immediately the words by you alleged.
I Complayned not of your crafty handling of Chrisostome without a iust cause, for when you had alleadged the wordes that seemed to make for your purpose, you left out the wordes that make clearly agaynst you, or which wordes at the least would open all the whole matter. And yet the wordes which you leaue out, follow immediately the wordes by you alleadged.
And where to discuss this whole matter, you say in the beginning, that Chrysostom doth not deny the visible minister, no more then he doth the visible form of bread, here at the first chop, you use an other policy, not much commendable, altering prettily the words of Chrysostom, making of bread the form of bread. For Chrysostom speaketh of bread and wine, §3and not of the forms and accidents of them. And if the bread be no more but the visible accidents of bread, then is the minister also no more but the visible accidents of a minister, and so is the priest nothing else, but the puppy of a priest. And then the communicants receive no bread of the priest, but a puppy of bread of a puppy of a priest. For Chrysostom speaketh in like form of words of the bread, as he doth of the priest, with these words (think not) Think not that thou seest bread, think not that thou receivest of a priest. And therefore if this form of speech exclude the substance of bread, it excludeth likewise the substance of the priest. And if the priest remain still, not withstanding that speech, then may the bread remain also with the same speech. And if your argument be good, there is Christs body, ergo there is no bread, then may I conclude in the same form of reasoning, there is bread, ergo there is not Christs body. And so this author maketh nothing for you, but overthroweth your foundation