A19563:2167
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.
Make you these two things all one, M. Smith, divers bodies to be in one place, and one body to be in divers places? If Christs body had been in one place with the substance of the stone or door, and at the same time, then you might well have proved thereby, that his body may as well be in one place, with the substance of bread & wine. But what availeth this to prove, that his body may be in divers places at one time? which is nothing like to the other, but rather clean contrary. Marry when Christ arose out of the sepulchre, or came into the house when the doors were shut, if you can prove that at the same time he was in heaven, then were that to some purpose, to prove that this dodye may be corporally in heaven and earth both at one time.
Make you these two thinges all one, M. Smith, diuers bodies to be in one place, and one body to be in diuers places? If Christs body had bene in one place with the substaūce of the stone or doore, and at the same time, thē you might well haue proued thereby, that his body may as well be in one place, with the substāce of bread & wine. But what auayleth this to proue, that his body may be in diuers places at one time? which is nothing like to the other, but rather cleane contrary. Marry when Christ arose out of the sepulchre, or came into the house when the dores were shut, if you can proue that at the same time he was in heauen, then were that to some purpose, to proue that this dodye may bee corporally in heauen and earth both at one tyme.
And yet the controversy here in this matter, is not what may be, but what is, God can do many things, which he neither doth nor will do. And to us his will (in things that appear not to our senses) is not known but by his word: Christs body may be aswell in the bread and wine, as in in the door and stone, and yet it may be also in the door and stone, and not in the bread and wine.
And yet the controuersy here in this matter, is not what may bee, but what is, God can do many thinges, which he neither doth nor will doe. And to vs his will (in thinges that appear not to our sences) is not known but by his word: Christes body may be aswell in the bread and wine, as in in the dore and stone, and yet it may be also in the dore and stone, and not in the bread and wine.