A19563:2407
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.
And again I said, whereas one saviour Christ ordained the Sacrament of his most precious body and blood, to be received of all Christian people, under the forms both of bread and wine, and said of the cup, drink ye all of this: the Pope giveth a clean contrary commandment, that no lay man shall drink of the cup of their salvation: as though the cup of Salvation by the blood of Christ, pertaineth not to lay men. And wherefore as Theophilus Alexandrinus, (whose works S. Hierome did translate about eleven hundred years ⟨p. 423⟩passed) saith that if Christ had been crucified for the Devils, his cup should not be denied them: yet the Pope denieth the cup of Christ to christen people, for whom Christ was crucified: so that if I should obey the Pope, in these things I must needs disobey my saviour Christ. But I was answered hereto (as commonly the Papists do answer,) that under the form of bread, is whole Christs flesh and blood, so that whosoever receiveth the form of bread, receiveth aswell christs blood as his flesh. Let it be so: yet in the form of bread only, Christs blood is not drunken but eaten, nor received in the cup under form of wine as Christ commanded, but eaten with the flesh under form of bread, and moreover the bread is not the sacrament of his blood, but of his flesh only, nor the cup is not the sacrament of his flesh, but of his blood only, and so the pope keepeth from all lay persons, the sacrament of their redemption by Christs blood, which Christ commanded to give unto them. And furthermore Christ ordained the sacrament in two kinds, the one separated from the other, to be a representation of his death, where his blood was separated from his flesh, which is not represented in one kind alone: so that lay people receive not the whole sacrament, whereby Christs death is represented as he commanded.
And agayne I sayd, whereas one sauiour Christ ordayned the Sacrament of his moste precious body and bloud, to be receiued of all Christian people, vnder the formes both of bread and wine, and sayd of the cup, drinke ye all of this: the Pope geueth a cleane contrary commaundement, that no lay man shall drinke of the cup of their saluation: as though the cup of Saluation by the bloud of Christ, pertayneth not to lay men. And wherefore as Theophilus Alexandrinus, (whose works S. Hierome did translate about eleuē hundred yeares ⟨p. 423⟩passed) sayth that if Christ had bene crucified for the Deuils, his cup should not be denied them: yet the Pope denieth the cup of Christ to christen people, for whome Christ was crucified: so that if I should obay the Pope, in these thinges I must needes disobay my sauior Christ. But I was aūswered hereto (as commonly the Papistes do aūswere,) that vnder the forme of bread, is whole Christs flesh and bloud, so that whosoeuer receiueth the forme of bread, receiueth aswell christes bloud as his flesh. Let it be so: yet in the forme of breade onely, Christs bloud is not drunken but eaten, nor receiued in the cup vnder forme of wine as Christ commaunded, but eaten with the flesh vnder forme of bread, and moreouer the bread is not the sacrament of his bloud, but of his flesh only, nor the cup is not the sacramēt of his flesh, but of his bloud onely, and so the pope keepeth from all lay persons, the sacrament of their redemption by Christes bloud, which Christ commaunded to geue vnto thē. And furthermore Christ ordayned the sacrament in two kindes, the one seperated from the other, to be a representation of his death, where his bloud was separated from his flesh, which is not represented in one kind alone: so that lay people receiue not the whole sacrament, whereby Christes death is represented as he commaunded.