A19563:321
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.
But what you mean by these words, that Christ gave in his supper, his body as really to be eaten of us, as he did to be crucified for us, I understand not, except you would have Christ so really eaten of his Apostles at his supper with their teeth, as he was after crucified, whipped, and thrust to the §8hart with a spear. But was he not then so really and corporally crucified, that his body was rent and torn in pieces? And was not he so crucified then, that he never was crucified after? Was he not so slain then, that he never ⟨p. 32⟩dyed any more? And if he were so eaten at his supper, then did his Apostles tear his flesh at the supper, as the Jews did the day following. And then how could he now be eaten again? Or how could he be crucified the day following, if the night before he were after that sort eaten all up? But aptly (say you) and conveniently: Mary Sir, I thank you: but what is the aptly and conveniently, but spiritually, and by faith (as you said before) not grossly with the teeth as he was crucified. And so the manner was divers (I grant) and the substance all one.
But what you mean by these wordes, that Christ gaue in his supper, his body as really to be eatē of vs, as he did to be crucified for vs, I vnderstand not, except you would haue Christ so really eaten of his Apostles at his supper with their teeth, as he was after crucified, whipped, and thrust to the §8hart with a speare. But was he not then so really and corporally crucified, that his body was rent and torne in peeces? And was not he so crucified then, that he neuer was crucified after? Was he not so slayn then, that he neuer ⟨p. 32⟩dyed any more? And if he were so eaten at his supper, then did his Apostles teare his flesh at the supper, as the Iewes did the day following. And then how could he now be eaten agayn? Or how could he be crucified the day following, if the night before he were after that sort eaten all vp? But aptly (say you) and conueniently: Mary Sir, I thanke you: but what is ye aptly and conueniently, but spiritually, and by faith (as you said before) not grosly with the teeth as he was crucified. And so the manner was diuers (I graunt) and the substance all one.