A19563:1557
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 Ulpian seemeth to me to have an other sense then all men can perceive, but I will not discuss the mind of Ulpian, because I am no lawyer, least you should cast the proverb in my teeth, Ne suitor ultra crepidam.
But Ulpian semeth to me to haue an other sense then all men can perceaue, but I will not discusse the minde of Ulpian, because I am no lawyer, least you should cast the prouerbe in my teeth, Ne sutor vltra crepidam.
But to what purpose you should bring in the diversity of judgements in natural operations, and the extreme fondness of philosophers, some in moving, some in staying, I can not devise, except it be the permission of God, that as some of the philosophers by their fond opinions in nature, made themselves laughing stocks to all men, of reason so should ye Papists do. And yet so much more is the Papistical opinion of Transubstantiation to be laughed to scorn of all men, as it passeth the fondness of all the philosophers, and that so far, that the fondest of the philosophers would have laughed at it, and have clapped it out of their schools with one consent, as an opinion more mete for frantic and mad men, then for men of natural reason. And as fond opinions as some philosophers had, yet was there none that so far erred in reason, to say that accidences might stand without any substance, but all with one uniform consent agreed, that accidences had none other being or remaining, but in their substances. And yet if the faith of our religion taught us the contrary, then reason must yield to faith. But your doctrine of Transubstantiation is as directly contrary to the plain words of scripture, as it is against the order of natural reason.
But to what purpose you should bring in the diuersity of iudgements in naturall operations, and the extreme fondnes of philosophers, some in mouing, some in staying, I can not deuise, except it be the permission of God, that as some of the philosophers by their fond opinions in nature, made themselues laughing stocks to all men, of reason so should ye Papists do. And yet so much more is the Papisticall opinion of Transubstantiation to be laughed to scorne of all men, as it passeth the fondnes of all the philosophers, and that so farre, that the fondest of the philosophers would haue laughed at it, and haue clapped it out of their scholes with one consent, as an opinion more mete for frantike and mad men, then for men of naturall reason. And as fond opinions as some philosophers had, yet was there none that so farre erred in reason, to say that accidences might stand without any substance, but all with one vniforme consent agreed, that accidences had none other being or remayning, but in their substances. And yet if the fayth of our religion taught vs the contrary, then reason must yelde to fayth. But your doctrine of Transubstantiation is as directly contrary to the playne wordes of scripture, as it is agaynst the order of naturall reason.