A19563:447
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.
There is nothing in this comparison worthy to be answered, for if you can find no difference therein,1 yet every indifferent Reader can. For when I report the Papists teaching, that they say Christ is received in the mouth, and entereth in with the bread and wine, and for an adversative thereto I say, that we (which follow the Scriptures, and ancient writers) say that he is received in the heart, and entereth in by faith, every indifferent Reader understandeth this adversative upon our side, that we say Christ is not received in the mouth, but in the hart, specially seeing that in my fourth book, the second and third chapters, I make purposely a process thereof, to prove that Christ is not eaten with mouths and teeth. And yet to eschew all such occasions of sleight as you impute unto me in this comparison, to make the comparison more full and plain, let this be the comparison.
THere is nothing in this comparyson worthy to be answered, for if you can finde no difference therein,1 yet euery indifferent Reader can. For when I reporte the Papistes teaching, that they say Christ is receaued in the mouth, and entreth in with the bread and wine, and for an aduersatiue therto I say, that we (which follow the Scriptures, and aūcient writers) say that he is receaued in the harte, and entreth in by faith, euery indifferent Reader vnderstandeth this aduersatiue vpon our side, yt we say Christ is not receaued in the mouth, but in the hart, specially seeing yt in my fourth booke, the second and third chapters, I make purposely a processe therof, to proue that Christ is not eaten with mouthes and teeth. And yet to eschew all such occasions of sleight as you impute vnto me in this comparison, to make the comparison more full and plain, let this be the comparison.