A19563:422
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.
1Now for the second part of the difference, you grant that our doctrine is true, that Christ is in them that worthily eat and drunk the bread and §4wine, and if it differ not from yours, then let it pass as a thing agreed upon by both parts. And yet if I would captiously gather of your words, I could as well prove by this second part, that very bread and wine be eaten and drunken after consecration, as you could prove by the first, that Christ ⟨p. 51⟩§5is in the very bread and wine. And if a Catholic man call the bread & wine (as you say in the second part of the difference) what meant you then in the first part of this difference to charge me with so heinous a crime, (with a note to the Reader) as though I had sinned against the holy Ghost, because I said that the Papists do teach that Christ is in the bread and wine: do not you affirm here yourself the same that I report? that the Papists, (which you call the Catholics) do not forbear to call the Sacrament (wherein they put the real and corporal presence) bread and wine? Let the Reader now judge, whether you be caught in your own snare or no. But such is the success of them that study to wrangle in words, without any respect of opening the truth.
1Now for the second parte of the difference, you graunt that our doctrine is true, that Christ is in them that worthely eate and drunke the bread and §4wine, and if it differ not from youres, then let it passe as a thing agreed vpon by both partes. And yet if I would captiously gather of your wordes, I could as well prooue by this second parte, that very bread and wine be eatē and drunken after consecration, as you could prooue by the first, that Christ ⟨p. 51⟩§5is in the very bread and wine. And if a Catholick man call ye bread & wine (as you say in the second parte of the difference) what ment you then in the first parte of this difference to charge me with so hainous a crime, (with a note to the Reader) as though I had sinned against the holy Ghost, because I said that the Papistes doe teach that Christ is in the bread and wine: doe not you affirme here yourselfe the same that I reporte? that the Papistes, (which you call the Catholickes) doe not forbeare to call the Sacrament (wherein they put the reall and corporall presence) bread and wine? Let the Reader now iudge, whether you be caught in your own snare or no. But such is the successe of them that study to wrangle in wordes, without any respecte of opening the truth.