A19563:952
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.
Let us now consider what particular answers this author deviseth to make to the fathers of the church: & first what he saith to S. Clements Epistle, his handling where of is worthy to be noted.
Let vs now consider what particular answeres this author deuiseth to make to the fathers of the church: & first what he sayth to S. Clements Epistle, his handling where of is worthy to be noted.
First, he saith the Epistle is not Clements but feigned (as he saith)1 many other things be for their purpose (he saith,) which solution is short & may be soon learned of naughty men, and naughtily applied further as they list. But this I may say, if this epistle were feigned of the Papists, then do they show themself fools, that could feign no better but §1so as this author might of their feigned Epistle gather three notes against them. This authors notes be these: First that the bread in the sacrament is called the Lords body, and that the broken bread be called the pieces and fragments of the Lords body. Mark,§2 well reader this note that speaketh so much of bread, where the words of the Epistle, in the part here alleged name no bread at all. If this author hath red so much mention of bread in an other part of the Epistle, why bringeth he not that forth to fortify his note? I have red after the same Epistle (pams sanctuary) but they would not help this authors note, and yet for the other matter joined with them, they would slander an other way. And therefore seeing this author hath left them out, I will go no further then is here alleged.