A19563:783
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 if so plain speech of Tertullian (say you) that Christ made bread §6his body, contain no more certainty in understanding but the figure of a body, why should not the body of Christ ever be taken for a figure? and so no certainty of any true body to be in Christ? This reason had been more fit to be made by a man that had lost both his wit and reason. For in this place Tertullian must needs be so understand that by the body of Christ is understand the figure of his body, because Tertullian so expoundeth it him self. And must it be always so, because it is here so? Must ever Christs body be taken for a figure, because it is here taken for a figure, as Tertullian saith? Have you so forgotten your Logic, that you will make a good argument, à particulari ad universale? By your own manner of argumentation, because you make a naughty argument here in this place, shall I conclude that you never make none good? Surely this place of Tertullian (as you have handled it) is neither secret nor manifest point, either of learning, wit, or reason, but a mere sophistication, if it be no worse.
But if so playne speech of Tertullian (say you) that Christ made bread §6his body, conteyne no more certayntie in vnderstanding but the figure of a body, why should not the body of Christ euer be taken for a figure? and so no certayntie of any true body to be in Christ? This reason had been more fitte to be made by a man that had lost both his witte and reason. For in this place Tertullian must needes be so vnderstand that by the body of Christ is vnderstand the figure of his body, because Tertullian so expoundeth it him selfe. And must it be always so, bicause it is here so? Must euer Christes body be taken for a figure, bicause it is here taken for a figure, as Tertullian sayth? Haue you so forgotten your Logike, that you will make a good argument, à particulari ad vniuersale? By your owne manner of argumentation, bicause you make a naughty argumēt here in this place, shall I conclude that you neuer make none good? Surely this place of Tertullian (as you haue handled it) is neither secret nor manifest poynt, eyther of learning, witte, or reason, but a meere sophistication, if it be no worse.