A19563:2110
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.
Hipinus saith, that the old fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice:§1 but that the old fathers should call it a sacrifice propitiatory I will not believe that Hipinus so said, until you appoint me both the book and place, where he so saith. For the effect of his book is clean contrary, which he wrote to reprove the propitiatory sacrifice, which the Papists feign to be in the Mass. Thus in deed Hipinus writeth in one place: Veteres Eucharistiam propter corporis & sanguinis Christipraesentiam, primo vocaverunt sacrificium, deinde propter oblationes & munera quae in ipsa Eucharistia Deo consecrabantur & conferebantur ad sacraministeria, & ad necessitatem credentium. In which words Hipinus declareth, that the old Fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice for two considerations, one was for the present of Christs flesh and blood, the other was for the offerings which the people gave there of their devotion to the holy ministration and relief of the poor. But ⟨p. 393⟩Hipinus speaketh here not one word of corporal presence, nor of propitiatory Sacrifice, but generally of presence and sacrifice, which maketh nothing for your purpose, nor against me, that grant both a presence and a sacrifice. But when you shall show me the place, where Hipinus saith, that the old Fathers called the Lords Supper a propitiatory sacrifice, I shall trust you the better, and him the worse.
HIpinus sayth, that the old fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice:§1 but that the old fathers should call it a sacrifice propitiatory I will not beleue that Hipinus so sayd, vntill you appoint me both the booke and place, where he so sayth. For the effect of his booke is cleane contrary, which he wrote to reproue the propitiatory sacrifice, which the Papistes fayne to be in the Masse. Thus in deede Hipinus writeth in one place: Veteres Eucharistiam propter corporis & sanguinis Christipraesentiam, primo vocauerunt sacrificium, deinde propter oblationes & munera quae in ipsa Eucharistia Deo consecrabantur & conferebantur ad sacraministeria, & ad necessitatem credentium. In which wordes Hipinus declareth, that the old Fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice for two consideratiōs, one was for the present of Christes flesh and bloud, the other was for the offerynges which the people gaue there of their deuotion to the holy ministratiō and reliefe of the poore. But