A19563:1005
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.
The answer also is easily made to the place which you allege out of Ignatius, where he calleth Eucharistia the flesh of our saviour Jesus Christ.§4 For he meaneth no more, but that it is the sacrament of his flesh, or the mystery of his flesh (or as Irene said) Eucharistia of his flesh, as even now I declared in mine answer to Irene. And your long process here may have a short answer gathered of your own words. This word Eucharistia (say you) can not be well Englished, but the body of Christ is good and plain English, & then if Eucharistia be such a thing as cannot be well Englished, it can not be called the body of Christ, but by a figurative speech. And how can you then conclude of Ignatius words, that this is my body, is no figurative speech? It seemeth rather that the clean contrary may be concluded. For if these. ii. speeches be like & of one sense (Eucharistia is Christs body, and this is my body) & the first be a declaration of the second, is this a good argument? The first is a figure, Ergo the second is none? Is it not rather to be gathered upon the other side thus? The first is a declaration of the second and yet the first is a figure, Ergo the second is also a figure? And that rather then the first: because the declaration should be a more plain speech then that which is declared by it.