A19563:1541
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.
Winchester.
In the third chapter written in the xxi. leaf it troubleth this author that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is in his judgement against natural reason and natural operation: in the entry of which matter he granteth wisely that they should not prevail against gods word, and yet he saith, when they be joined with gods word, they be of §1great moment to confirm any truth: wherein if he meaneth to confirm Gods word by reason, or gods mysteries by natural operation, mine understanding cannot reach that doctrine, and is more strange to me, then this author maketh Transubstantiation to be to him. As for the reason of (vacuum) declareth a vacuum, that nature abhorreth §2not. And if we speak after the rules of nature, quantity filleth the place rather than substance. And shortly to answer this Author, it is not said in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, that there remaineth nothing: for in the visible form of bread remaineth §3the proper object of every sense truly: that is seen with the bodily eye, is truly seen, that is felt, is truly felt, that is savoured, is truly savoured, and those things corrupt, putrefy, nourish and consume after the truth of the former nature, God so ordering it that create all, using singularly that creature of bread, not to unite it unto him as he did mans nature, to be in bread impanate, & breaded as he was in flesh incarnate. And as for reason in place of service as being inferior to saith, will agree with the faith of Transubstantiation well enough. For if our faith of the true presence of Christs very body be true, as it is most true grounded upon these words of Christ (This is my ⟨p. 265⟩