A19563:1774
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 because you would have all your things strange (as it were one that had come out of a strange country, where he had learned a strange fashion of speech, never heard of before, or rather devised it himself) you call the colours of bread and wine, the matter of bread and wine, because §13colours only be visible after your teaching. And then must the natural property of colours be, to signify our feeding spiritual by the body and blood of Christ, that as they feed us spiritually, so do the colours corporally. And then making the argument ab opposito consequentis, ad oppositum antecedentis, as colours feed not our bodies, so Christ feedeth not our souls. This is the conclusion of your goodly new devised divinity.
And bicause you would haue all your thinges strange (as it were one that had come out of a strange cuntry, where he had learned a strange fashion of speach, neuer heard of before, or rather deuised it himselfe) you call the colours of bread and wine, the matter of bread and wine, bicause §13colours onely be visible after your teaching. And then must the naturall property of colours be, to signify our feeding spirituall by the body and bloud of Christ, that as they feede vs spiritually, so do the colours corporally. And then making the argument ab opposito consequentis, ad oppositum antecedentis, as colours feede not our bodyes, so Christ feedeth not our soules. This is the conclusion of your goodly new deuised diuinity.
And to like effect cometh your other saying in the same sentence, (because §14you were loth to commit but one horrible error in one sentence) that Gelasius calleth Christs body and blood his divine substance.
And to like effect cometh your other saying in the same sentence, (bicause §14you were loth to commit but one horrible errour in one sentence) that Gelasius calleth Christes body and bloud his diuine substance.