A19563:200
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.
And albeit this author would not have them bare tokens,1 yet and they be only tokens, they have no warrant signed by scripture, for any apparel at all. For the vi of John speaketh not of any promise made, to the eating of a token of Christs flesh, but to the eating of Christs very flesh, whereof the bread (as this author would have it) is but a figure in Christs words, when he said (This is my body.) And if it be but a figure in Christs words, it is but a figure in S. Pauls words when he said: The bread which we break, is it not the communication of Christs body? that is to say, a figure of the communication of Christs body (if this authors doctrine be true) and not the communication in deed.2 §2Wherefore if the very body of Christ be not in the supper delivered in deed, the eating there hath no special promise,3 but only commandment to do it in remembrance. After which doctrine why should it be noted absolutely for a Sacrament and special mystery, that hath nothing hidden in it, but a plain open ordinance of a token for a remembrance: to the eating of which token, is annexed no promise expressly, ne any holiness ⟨p. 10⟩to be accounted to be in the bread or wine (as this author teacheth) but to be called holy, because they be deputed to an holy use. If I ask the use, he declareth to signify. If I should ask what to signify? There must be a sort of good words framed without scripture. For scripture expresseth no matter of signification of special effect.