A19563:490
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 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 ⟨p. 64⟩follow, that the partes in their owne substaunce be not in the sacrament. And if this distinction of partes, 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.
1And forasmuch as I speak not one word of the comprehension of our senses, to what purpose do you bring this in, if it be not to draw us to a new matter, to avoid that which is in controversy? You do herein as if James should by of John a parcel of land, and by his attorney take state and possession therein. And after John should traverse the matter, and say, that there was never no state delivered, and thereupon join their issue. And when James should bring forth his witnesses for the state and possession, then should John run to a new matter, and say that James saw the possession delivered: what were this allegation of John to the purpose of the thing that was in issue, whether the possession were delivered in deed or no? Were this any other thing, then to avoid the issue craftily, by bringing in of a new matter? And yet this shift is a common practise of you in this book, and this is another point of the devils Sophistry, wherein it is pity that ever such a wit as you have, should be occupied.