A19563:1432
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.
As for Emissen you agree here with me,1 that he speaketh not of any receiving of Christs body and blood with our mouths, but only with our hearts. And where you say, that you have entreated before, how the invisible priest with his secret power doth convert the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood. I have in that same place made answer to those words of Emissene, but most plainly of all in my former book the xxv. leaf. And Emissene saith not, that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament, and thereof you be not ignorant, although you do pretend the contrary, which is somewhat worse then ignorance.
As for Emissen you agree here with me,1 that he speaketh not of any receauing of Christes body and bloud with our mouthes, but only with our hartes. And where you say, that you haue entreated before, how the inuisible priest with his secret power doth conuert the visible creatures into the substaunce of his body and bloud. I haue in that same place made answere to those wordes of Emissene, but most playnly of all in my former booke the xxv. leafe. And Emissene sayth not, that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament, and therof you be not ignoraunt, although you doe pretend the contrary, which is somewhat worse then ignoraunce.
- 1Emesserie.
And what this word (corporal) meaneth,1 I am not ignorant, Mary ⟨p. 238⟩what you mean by corporal I know not, and the opening thereof shall discuss the whole matter. Tell therefore plainly without dissimulation or coloured words, what manner of body it is that Christ hath in the Sacrament? Whether it be a very and perfect mans body, with all the members thereof, distinct one from an other or no? For that understand I to be a mans corporal body, that hath all such parts, without which may be a body, but no perfect mans body. So that the lack of a finger maketh a lack in the perfection of a mans body. Mary if you will make Christ such a body as bread and cheese is (wherein every part is bread and cheese without form and distinction of one part from an other) I confess mine ignorance, that I know no such body to be a mans body. Now have I showed mine ignorance, declare now your wit and learning. For sure I am, that Christ hath all those parts in heaven, and if he lack them in the Sacrament, then lacketh he not a little of his perfection. And then it can not be one body, that hath parts and hath no parts.