A19563:1500
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 as in the third book, concerning the real presence of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament, you have not showed mine ignorance or wilfulness, but your own: so do you now much more in the matter of Transubstantiation: Which word (say you) albeit the same was first spoken of in the general council, where the Bishop of Rome was present, yet the true matter signified by that word was older. Here at the first brunt you confess, that the name of Transubstantiation was given at the council. So that either the matter was not before (as it was not in deed) or at the least it was before a nameless child (as you do grant) until the holy father Innocent the third, which begat it, assembled a company of his friends as godfathers to name the child. And by what authority the counsel defined the matter of Transubstantiation, it may easily appear. For authority of scripture have they none, nor none they do allege. And what the authority of the Pope was there, all men may see, being present in the same no less then .800. Abbots and Priors, who were all the Popes own children, of him created and begotten.
And as in the third booke, concerning the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament, you haue not shewed myne ignorance or wilfulnes, but your owne: so do you now much more in the matter of Transubstantiation: Which word (say you) albeit the same was fyrst spoken of in the generall counsell, where the Byshop of Rome was present, yet the true matter signified by that word was older. Here at the first brunt you confesse, that the name of Transubstantiation was giuen at the counsell. So that either the matter was not before (as it was not in deed) or at the least it was before a namelesse child (as you do graunt) vntill the holy father Innocent the thyrd, which begat it, assembled a company of his frendes as godfathers to name the child. And by what authority the counsayle defined the matter of Transubstantiation, it may easely appeare. For authority of scripture haue they none, nor none they do alleadge. And what the authority of the Pope was there, all men may see, being present in the same no lesse then .800. Abbottes and Priours, who were all the Popes owne chyldren, of him created and begotten.
And as for the confession of all the clergy of this Realm in an open council,