A19563:1206
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 no marvel, for he is now become so blindfold, & subject unto them, that he must say what so ever they bid him, be it never so much repugnant to the evident truth. In such sort it is in the matter of yt sacrament. For the papists perceiving that their error should easily be espied, if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined, that plain words of the scripture, the consent of ancient writers, the articles of our faith, the nature of a sacrament, reason & all senses making so evidently against it, therefore none of the subtle Papists will be glad to talk of transubstantiation, but they will always bear men in hand, that other matters must first be examined, as the late Bishop doth here in this place.
And no meruail, for he is now becōe so blindfeld, & subiect vnto them, yt he must say what so euer they bid him, be it neuer so much repugnāt to ye euidēt truth. In such sort it is in ye matter of yt sacramēt. For the papistes perceauing that their error should easily be espied, if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined, that plaine wordes of the scripture, the consent of aūcient writers, the articles of our fayth, the nature of a sacrament, reason & all sences making so euidently agaynst it, therefore none of the subtle Papistes will be glad to talke of transubstantiation, but they will alwayes beare men in hand, that other matters must fyrst be examined, as the late Bishop doth here in this place.
Now in the second place of Chrysostom, where you say, that in this sacrament Christs humanity and godhead is really present, & in baptism his godhead with the effectual virtue of his blood in which we be washed, not requiring by scripture any real presence thereof for the dispensation ⟨p. 194⟩of that mystery, n this matter I have joined an issue with you before in the answer unto Drigen, which shall suffice for answer here also.
Now in the second place of Chrisostome, where you say, that in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present, & in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed, not requiring by scripture any reall presence thereof for the dispensation