A19563:1552
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 you after this sort wresting holy scriptures and doctors, for maintenance of your error of Transubstantiation, do lead your self craftily into an other heinous error (if this your proposition be true, that the grant of one substance is a denial of any other) which is, to deny Christ either to be very God or man. For by your sentence, if he in substance be God, then can he not have the substance of man: for the grant of one substance is a denial of any other, as ye say.
And you after this sort wrasting holy scriptures and doctors, for maintenaunce of your error of Transubstantiation, do lead your selfe craftely into an other heinous errour (if this your proposition be true, that the graunt of one substance is a deniall of any other) which is, to deny Christ eyther to be very God or man. For by your sentence, if he in substance be God, then can he not haue the substance of man: for the graunt of one substance is a deniall of any other, as ye say.
And like as ye do err in misunderstanding of the Scripture and Doctors, so do you err in reason and judgement of things: your own eyes, nose, mouth, and fingers, bearing witness against you of your wilful error and folly. For what man is living (which hath his right wits) that can believe as you teach, that the proper object of every sense remaineth (that is to say, colour, taste, savour &c) and yet the former substance of bread and wine is gone? And here, to further your belief of Transubstantiation, you do exaggerate your accustomed absurdity of Impanation of Christs body, as if every man that believeth not your error of Transubstantiation, must of necessity fall into the error of Impanation, or as if I defended the said Impanation.1 But whether I defended any such fond opinion or no, or whether I have herein sufficiently answered the Papists, I refer to the judgement of all wise and learned men (that be any thing indifferent) which have read my book.
And like as ye do erre in misunderstanding of the Scripture and Doctours, so do you erre in reason and iudgement of thinges: your owne eyes, nose, mouth, and fingers, bearing witnes agaynst you of your wilfull error and folly. For what man is liuing (which hath his right wittes) that can beleeue as you teach, that the proper obiect of euery sence remayneth (that is to say, colour, taste, sauoure &c) and yet the former substance of bread and wine is gone? And here, to further your belefe of Transubstantiation, you do exaggerat your accustomed absurdity of Impanation of Christes body, as if euery man that beleueth not your errour of Transubstantiation, must of necessity fall into the errour of Impanation, or as if I defended ye sayd Impanatiō.