A19563:500
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.
Winchester.
1I have red that some entreat these chances of dogs and cats, but I never heard any of that opinion, to say or write so (as a doctrine) that a dog or a cat eateth the body of Christ, and set it forth for a teaching, as this author most impudently supposeth, and I marvel much that such a word, and such a report, can come out of a christian mans mouth, and therefore this is by the author a marvellous surmise, Whereupon to take occasion to bring the adversative (But) for the Authors part, being such a saying on that side, as all christendom hath ever taught, that no creature can eat the body, and drink the blood of Christ, but only man.2 But this abominable surmised no truth in the former part of his comparison, may be taken for a proof, whether such beastly asseverations proceed from the spirit of truth or now, And whether truth be there intended, where such blasphemy is surmised. But let us see the rest.
1I haue red that some intreate these chances of dogges and cattes, but I neuer heard any of that opinion, to say or write so (as a doctrine) that a dogge or a catte eateth the body of Christ, and set it forth for a teaching, as this author most impudently supposeth, and I maruell much that such a worde, and such a reporte, can come out of a christian mānes mouth, and therefore this is by the author a maruelous surmise, Whereupon to take occasion to bring the aduersatiue (But) for the Authors parte, being such a saying on that side, as all christendome hath euer taught, that no creature can eate the body, and drinke the bloud of Christ, but onely man.2