A19563:2129
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.
The controversy is not, whether in the holy communion be made a sacrifice or not (for herein both D. Smith and I agree with the foresaid council at Ephesus) but whether it be a propitiatory sacrifice or not, and whether only the priest make the said sacrifice, these be the points wherein we vary. And I say so far as the council saith, that there is a sacrifice, but that the same is propitiatory for remission of sin, or that the priest alone doth offer it, neither I nor the council do so say, but D. Smith hath added that of his own vain head.
The controuersy is not, whether in the holy communion be made a sacrifice or not (for herein both D. Smith and I agree with the foresayd councell at Ephesus) but whether it be a propitiatory sacrifice or not, and whether onely the priest make the sayd sacrifice, these be the poyntes wherin we vary. And I say so far as the councell sayth, that there is a sacrifice, but that the same is propitiatory for remission of sinne, or that the priest alone doth offer it, neyther I nor the counsell do so say, but D. Smith hath added that of his owne vayne head.
The other thing wherein D. Smith belieth me is this:1 He saith that I deny, that we receive in the sacrament that flesh which is adjoined to Gods own son. I marvel not a little what eyes Doctor Smith had, when he red over my book. It is like that he hath some privy spectacles within his head, wherewith when soever he looketh, he seeth but what he list. For in my book I have written in moe then an hundred places, that we receive the self same body of Christ that was borne of the virgin Mary, that was crucified and buried, that rose again, ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the father almighty. And the contention is only in the manner and form how we receive it.
The other thing wherin D. Smith belyeth me is this:1 He sayth that I deny, that we receaue in the sacrament that flesh which is adioyned to Gods owne sonne. I meruaile not a little what eyes Doctor Smith had, when he red ouer my booke. It is like that he hath some priuy spectacles within his head, wherwith when soeuer he loketh, he seeth but what he list. For in my booke I haue written in moe then an hundred places, that we receaue the selfe same body of Christ that was borne of the virgine Mary, that was crucified and buried, that rose agayne, ascended into heauen, and sitteth at the right hand of God the father almighty. And the contention is onely in the manner and forme how we receaue it.