A19563:988
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.
By such pretty cases, of the people disappointing the priests: and of lack of store of clerks, you might daily find cavillations with all godly ordinances. For where as God ordained the paschal lamb to be eaten up clean in every house:1 and where there were not enough in one house to eat up the Lamb, they should call of their neighbours so many as should suffice to eat up the hole Lamb, so that nothing should remain: Here you might bring in your (upon a chance) that they that lacked company to eat up a hole Lamb, dwelt alone far from other houses, and could not come together: or could not get any such Lamb as was appointed for the feast, or if their neighbours lacked company also. And what if they had no spit to roast the lamb? And where as it was commanded, that they should be shooed, what if perchance they had no shoes? And if perchance a mans wife were not at home, and all his servants fallen sick of the sweat, or plague, and no man durst come to his house, then must he turn the spit him self, and eat the Lamb all alone? Such chances you purposely devise, to establish your private Mass, that the priest may eat all alone. But by such a like reason as you make here, a man might prove, that the priest should preach or say matins to him self alone, in case (as you say) that the people which should come, would disappoint him. For what if the people disappoint the priest (say you) and come not to the communion? What if the people disappoint the priest (say I) and come not to matins nor sermon? shall he therefore say matins and preach, when no man is present but him self alone? But your imagined case hath such an absurdity in it, as is not tolerable to be thought to have been in Christian people in that time, when Clements Epistles were written, that when all the people should receive the communion with the priest, yet not one would come, but all would disappoint him. And yet in that case I doubt not, but the priest would have abstained from ministration unto more opportunity and more access of Christian people, as he would have done likewise in saying of matins and preaching. Wherefore in your case I might well answer you,2 as S. Hierom answered the argument made in the name of the heretic Jovinian, which might be brought against the commendation of virginity. What if all men would live virgins, and no man marry?
By such prety cases, of the people disapoynting the priestes: and of lacke of store of clerkes, you might dayly finde cauilations with all godly ordenaunces. For where as God ordayned the pascall lambe to be eaten vp cleane in euery house: