A19563:709
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.
Therefore I have not here partly opened the faith of Transubstantiation (as you say of me) but you have here manifestly opened the wisdom of the Papistical doctrine, which is more foolish, then were to be devised by a scoffer in a play.
Therefore I haue not here partly opened the faith of Transubstantiaon (as you say of me) but you haue here manifestly opened the wisedome of the Papisticall doctrine, which is more foolish, then were to be deuised by a scoffer in a play.
But what need I much to contend with you in this place, seeing that you grant the thing for the which I cited all these authors, that is to say that Christ called bread his body,1 when he said, This is my body?
But what neede I much to contend with you in this place, seing that you graunt the thing for the whiche I cyted all these authors, that is to say that Christ called bread his body,1 when he said, This is my body?
- 1Whether Christ called bread his body.
And in your detection of the Devils sophistry (as you call it) you say §4that Christ spake plainly, This is my body, making demonstration of the bread, when he said, This is my body. But it seemeth you be sorry that you have granted so much, and that you spake those words unadvisedly, before you knew what the Papists had written in this matter: and now when you perceive how far you vary from them, you would fain call your words back again, and prepare away for the same, saying thus: When Christ said (This is my body) there is no necessity, that the demonstration (this) should be referred to the outward visible matter, but may be referred to the invisible substance. In these your words it seemeth you begin to doubt in that thing which before you certainly affirm without all doubt.