A19563:770
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.
1Tertullian speaking of the representation of Christs very body, in which place he termeth (the same body) speaketh catholicly in such phrase as S. Hierom speaketh: and then Tertullian saith afterward as this author therein truly bringeth him forth that Christ made the bread his body, which bread was in the mouth of the prophet §1a figure of his body. Wherefore it followeth by Tertullians confession when Christ made the bread his body, that Christ ended the figure, and made it the trueth, making now his body that was before the figure of his body. For if Christ did no more but make it a §2figure still, then did he not make it his body, as Tertullian himself saith he did. And Tertullian therefore being red thus, as appeareth to me most probable, that (that is to say in Tertullian) should be only referred to the explication of the first (this:) as when Tertullian had alleged Christs words saying (this is my body) and putteth to of his own (that is to say the figure of my body,) these words (that is to say) should serve to declare the demonstration (this,) in this wise (that is to say, this) which the Prophet called the figure of the body, is now my body. And so Tertullian said before the Christ had made bread his body, which bread was a figure of his body with the Prophet, and now endeth in the very trueth, being made his body by conversion as (Cyprian §3showeth) of the nature of bread into his body. Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionites: and because a figure in the prophet signifieth a certain unfeigned truth of that is signified, seeing Christs body was figured by bread in the prophet Jeremiah, it appeareth §4Christ had a true body. And that the bread was of Christ approved for a figure he made now his very body. And this may be said evidently to Tertullian, who reasoning against heretics useth the commodity of arguing, and giveth no doctrine of