A19563:977
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 you wrangle so much in this matter to avoid absurdities, that you snarl your self into so many and heinous absurdities, as you shall never ⟨p. 148⟩be able to wind your self out. For you say that Christs body (which in all the hosts, and in all the parts of the hosts is but one, not broken,§4 nor distributed) is called the leaving pieces of the body, portion of the body, residue of the body, & yet every piece is Christs whole body, which things to be spoken of Christs body, christian ears abhor for to hear. And if you will say, that your book is false, that you meant all these leaving pieces, portion, and residue, to be understand of the hosts, and not of Christs body, then you confess the hosts which be broken, to be called by name the leavings or pieces of Christs body, the portion of his body, the residue of his body, by a figurative speech, which is as much as I speak in my first note. And so appeareth how vainly you have travelled for the confutation of my first note.
But you wrangle so much in this matter to auoyd absurdities, that you snarle your self into so many and haynous absurdities, as you shall neuer ⟨p. 148⟩be able to winde your selfe out. For you say that Christes body (which in all the hostes, and in all the partes of the hostes is but one, not broken,§4 nor distributed) is called the leauing peeces of the body, portiō of the body, residue of the body, & yet euery peece is Christs whole body, which things to be spoken of Christes body, christian eares abhore for to heare. And if you will say, that your booke is false, that you meant al these leauing peeces, portion, and residue, to be vnderstand of the hostes, and not of Christs body, then you confesse the hostes which be broken, to be called by name the leauings or peeces of Christs body, the portion of his body, the residue of his body, by a figuratiue spech, which is as much as I speake in my first note. And so appeareth how vaynely you haue traueled for the confutation of my first note.