A19563:1365
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.
And where you say, that all that ever I bring, to prove that evil men eat not the body of Christ, may be shortly answered, truth it is (as you said in one place of me) that all that I have brought may be shortly answered, if a man care not what he answer: as it seemeth you pas not much what you answer, so that you may lay on lode of words. For where as I have fully proved as well by authority of scripture, as by the testimony of many old writers, that although evil men eat the sacramental bread, and drink the wine (which have the names of his flesh and blood) yet they eat not Christs very flesh nor drink his blood: Your short and whole answer is this,1 that evil men may be said not to eat Christs flesh and drink his blood, because they do it not fruitfully, as they ought to do. And that may be called a not eating, as they may be said not to hear God's word, that hear it not profitably: and a thing not well done, may be in speech called not done, in the respect of the good effect. I grant such speeches be sometime used, but very rarely and when the very truth cometh in discussion, then such Paradoxes are not to be used. As if it come in question whether a house be builded, that is not well builded, then the definition of the matter must not be, that it is not builded, although the carpenters and other workmen have failed in their covenant and bargain, and not builded the house in such sort as they ought to have done. So our saviour Christ teacheth that all heard the word,2 whether the seed fell in the high way, or upon the stones, or among the thorns, or in the good ground. Wherefore when this matter cometh in discussion among the old writers, whether evil men eat Christs body or no, if the truth had been that evil men eat it, the ⟨p. 224⟩old writers would not so precisely have defined the contrary, that they eat not, but would have said they eat it, but not effectually, not fruitfully, not profitably. But now the authors which I have alleged, define plainly and absolutely, that evil men eat not Christs body, without any other addition. But after this sort that you do use, it shall be an easy matter for every man to say what liketh him, and to defend it well enough, if he may add to the scriptures and doctors words at his pleasure, and make the sense after his own fantasy.