A19563:1247
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.
Now where you say that there can not be a more plain proof to show that Christs body is verily in the sacrament, and not figuratively only, than when S. Hierome noteth Panis propositionis, to be the figure and shadow of Christs body in the sacrament. For (as Tertullian saith) the other were not to be called a figure, if that which answereth to it were not of truth. Here your (for) is a plain fallax à non causa ut causa, and a wondrous subtlety is used therein. For where Tertullian proveth, that Christ had here in earth a very body (which Martion denied because that bread was instituted to be a figure thereof, and there can be no figure of a thing that is not, you allege Tertullian's words, as though he should say, that Christs body is in the sacrament under the form of bread, whereof neither Tertullian entreated in that place, nor it is not required, that the body should be corporally where the figure is, but rather it should be in vain to have a figure when the thing it self is present. And therefore you untruly report both of S. Hierome and Tertullian. For neither of them both do say, as you would gather of their words, that Christs body is in the sacrament really and corporally.
Now where you say that there canne not be a more playne proofe to shew that Christes body is verely in the sacrament, and not figuratiuely onely, than when S. Hierome noteth Panis propositionis, to be the figure and shadow of Christes body in the sacrament. For (as Tertulian sayth) the other were not to be called a figure, if that which aunswereth to it were not of truth. Here your (for) is a playne fallax à non causa vt causa, and a wonderous subtiltie is vsed therin. For where Tertulian proueth, that Christ had here in earth a very body (which Martion denied bicause that bread was instituted to be a figure therof, and there canne bee no figure of a thing that is not, you alleadge Tertulians wordes, as though he should say, that Christes body is in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread, whereof neyther Tertulian intreated in that place, nor it is not required, that the body should be corporally where the figure is, but rather it should be in vayne to haue a figure when ye thing it selfe is present. And therfore you vntruely reporte both of S. Hierome and Tertulian. For neyther of them both do say, as you would gather of theyr wordes, that Christes body is in the sacrament really and corporally.