A19563:736
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 why should I join with you here an issue, in that matter which §5I never spake? For I never read nor hard no man that said (saving you alone) that we do eat Christ grossly, or carnally, or as eating is taken in common speech without any figure, but all that ever I have hard or read, say quite clean contrary. But you, who affirm that we eat Christ carnally, and as eating is taken in common speech (which is carnally & grossly to chaw with the teeth) must needs consequently grant, that we eat him grossly and carnally, as dogs eat paunches. And this is a strange thing to hear, that where before you said, that Christ is present but after a spiritual manner, now you say, that he is eaten carnally.
But why should I ioyne with you here an issue, in that mater which §5I neuer spake? For I neuer read nor hard no man that sayd (sauing you alone) that we do eate Christ grossely, or carnally, or as eating is taken in common speach without any figure, but all that euer I haue hard or read, say quite cleane contrary. But you, who affirme that we eate Christ carnally, and as eating is taken in common speach (which is carnally & grossely to chaw with the teeth) must nedes consequently graunt, that we eat him grossely and carnally, as dogges eate paunches. And this is a strange thing to heare, that where before you sayd, that Christ is present but after a spirituall maner, now you say, that he is eaten carnally.
And where you say, that in the holy Supper men use their mouth and teeth, truth it is that they so do, but to chaw the Sacrament, not the body of Christ. And if they do not tear that most precious body and blood, why say you then that they eat the body of Christ, as eating is taken in common speech? And wherefore doth that false Papistical faith of Pope Nicolas,1 (which you wrongfully call Catholic,) teach that Christs body is torn with the teeth of the faythfull? De consecr. dist. 2. Ego.