A19563:727
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.
In the lx. leaf the author entreateth whether it be a plain speech of Christ to say (eat §1and drink) speaking of his body and blood. I answer, the speech of it self is proper: commanding them present to eat and drink that is proponed for them: and yet it is not requisite that the nature of man should with like common effect work, in eating and drinking that heavenly meat & drink, as it doth in earthly and carnal meats. In this mystery man doth as Christ ordained, that is to say, receive with his mouth, that is ordered to be received with his mouth, granting it nevertheless of that dignity and estimation, that Christs words affirms: and whether he so doth or no, Christs ordinance is as it is in the substance of it self alone, whereof no good man §2judgeth carnally or grossly, ne discusseth the unfaithful question (how) which he can not conceive, but leaveth the deepness thereof, and doth as he is bidden. This mystery receiveth no mans thoughts. Christs institution hath a property in it, which can not be discussed by mans sensual reason. Christs words be spirit and life, which §3this author wresteth with his own gloss, to exclude the truth of the eating of Christs flesh in his supper. And yet for a shift, if a man would join issue with him, putteth to his speech the words (grossly) and (carnally) which words in such a rude understanding, be terms meeter to express how dogs devour paunches, then to be inculcated ⟨p. 113⟩§4in speaking of this high mystery. Wherein I will make the issue with this author, that §5no catholic teaching is so framed with such terms, as though we should eat Christs most precious body grossly, carnally, joining those words so together. For else (carnally) alone may have a good signification, as Hillary useth it: but contrariwise speaking in the Catholic teaching of the manner of Christs presence, they call it a spiritual manner of presence, and yet there is present by gods power the very true natural body and blood of Christ, whole God & man, without leaving his place in heaven: