A19563:489
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 traverse the matter of the judgement of our senses herein, it is quite and clean from the matter, and but a crafty shift, to convey the matter to an other thing that is not in question, like unto crafty male-factors, which perceiving them selves to be sore pursued with a hound, make a new train to draw the hound to an other fresh suit. For I speak not of the judgement of our senses in this matter, whether they perceive any distinction of parts and members or no, but whether in deed there be any such distinction in the Sacrament or no, which the Papists do deny. And therefore I say not untruly of them, that in the sacrament they say: There is no distance of parts one from another.
And where you trauesse the matter of the iudgement of our senses herein, it is quite and cleane from the matter, and but a crafty shift, to conuey the matter to an other thing that is not in question, lyke vnto crafty male-factours, whych perceauing them selues to be sore pursued with a hound, make a new trayn to draw the hound to an other fresh suit. For I speake not of the iudgement of our senses in this matter, whether they perceaue any distinction of partes and members or no, but whether in deed there be any such distinction in the Sacrament or no, which the Papistes do deny. And therefore I say not vntruely of them, that in the sacrament they say: There is no distance of partes one from another.
And if the parts in their substance be distinct one from an other (as you say) and be not so distinct in the Sacrament (as Thomas saith) then must it ⟨p. 64⟩follow, that the parts in their own substance be not in the sacrament. And if this distinction of parts, be in the true body of Christ, and not in the sacrament (as Thomas saith) then followeth it again, that the true body of Christ is not in the sacrament.
And if the parts in theyr substance be distinct one from an other (as you say) and be not so distinct in the Sacramēt (as Thomas sayth) thē must it