A19563:975
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 then forasmuch as he calleth the leavings of the same, the broken pieces of the Lords body, and the fragments and portion thereof, he calleth the fragments and portion of the Lords body, he showeth that the bread remaineth, and that the calling thereof the lords body is a figurative speech. The body of Christ hath no fragments nor broken pieces, and therefore the calling here is so material,1 that it proveth fully the matter, that to call bread Christs body, is a figurative speech. And although to avoid the matter §3you devise subtle cavillations, saying that calling is not material, because it signifieth that was: Yet they that have understanding, may soon discern what a vain shift this is, imagined only to blind the ignorant readers eyes. But if that which is bread before the consecration, be after no bread, and if it be against the Christen faith to think that it is still bread, what occasion of error should this be, to call it still bread after consecration? Is not this a great occasion of error to call it bread still, if it be not bread still?
And then forasmuch as he calleth the leauings of ye same, the brokē peeces of the Lords body, and the fragments and portion therof, he calleth ye fragments and portion of the Lordes body, he sheweth that the bread remayneth, and that the calling therof the lords body is a figuratiue speech. The body of Christ hath no fragments nor broken peces, and therfore the calling here is so materiall,1 that it proueth fully the matter, that to call bread Christs body, is a figuratiue speech. And although to auoid the matter §3you deuise subtill cauillatious, saying that calling is not materiall, because it signifieth that was: Yet they that haue vnderstanding, may soon discerne what a vayne shift this is, imagined onely to blynd the ignorant readers eyes. But if that which is bread before ye consecration, be after no bread, and if it be agaynst the Christen fayth to think that it is still bread, what occasion of errour should this be, to call it still bread after consecration? Ys not this a great occasion of errour to call it bread still, if it be not bread still?