A19563:785
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.
Here the reader may note by the way, how many foul shifts you make to avoid the saying of Tertullian. First you say, that bread was a figure in the prophets mouth, but not in Christs words. Second, that the thing which the prophet spake of, was not that which Christ spake of. Third, that other have answered this place of Tertullian before. Forth, that you call this matter but a wrangling argument. Fifth, that if Tertullian call bread a figure, yet he termeth it not, only figure. These be your shifts. Now let the reader look upon Tertullians plain words, which I have rehearsed in my book, and then let him judge, whether you mean to declare Tertullians mind truly or no.
Here the reader may note by the way, how many fowle shiftes you make to auoyd the saying of Tertullian. First you say, that bread was a figure in the prophets mouth, but not in Christes wordes. Second, that the thing which the prophet spake of, was not that which Christ spake of. Third, that other haue aunswered this place of Tertullian before. Forth, that you call this matter but a wrangling argument. Fift, that if Tertulian call bread a figure, yet he termeth it not, onely figure. These be your shiftes. Now let the reader looke vpon Tertullians playn wordes, whyche I haue rehearsed in my booke, and then let him iudge, whether you meane to declare Tertullians mynd truely or no.
And it is not requisite for my purpose, to prove that bread is only a figure,§8 for I take upon me there to prove no more, but that the bread is a ⟨p. 123⟩figure representing Christs body, and the wine his blood. And if bread be a figure, and not only a figure, than must you make bread, both the figure, and the truth of the figure.
And it is not requiset for my purpose, to proue that bread is onely a figure,§8 for I take vpon me there to proue no more, but that the bread is a