A19563:1563
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 where you say that I make my principal foundation upon the arguments §10of the scholastical writers, although mine arguments deduced out of the scholastical authors be unto you insoluble (and therefore you pass them over unanswered) yet I make no foundation at all upon them, but my very foundation is only upon Gods word, which foundation is so sure, that it will never fail. And mine arguments in this place, I bring in only to this end, to show how far your imagined Transubstantiation is, not only from Gods word, but also from the order and precepts of nature, and how many and portentous absurdities you fall into by means of the same. Which it seemeth you do confess by holding your peace, without making answer thereto. But now let us consider what is next in my book.
And where you say that I make my principall foundation vpon the arguments §10of the scholasticall writers, although myne arguments deduced out of the scholasticall authors be vnto you insoluble (and therfore you passe them ouer vnanswered) yet I make no foundation at all vpon them, but my very foundation is onely vpon Gods word, which foundation is so sure, that it will neuer fayle. And myne arguments in this place, I bring in onely to this end, to shew how farre your imagined Transubstantiation is, not onely from Gods word, but also from the order and precepts of nature, and how many and portentuous absurdities you fall into by meanes of the same. Which it semeth you do confesse by holding your peace, without making answere therto. But now lette vs consider what is next in my booke.
1The Papistical doctrine is also against all our outward senses, called our five wits. For our eyes say, they see there bread and wine: our noses smell bread and wine: our mouths taste, and our hands feel bread and wine. And although the articles of our faith be above all our outward senses, so that we believe things which we can neither see, feel, hear, smell nor taste, yet they be not contrary to our senses, at the least so contrary, that in such things, which we from time to time do see, smell, feel, hear and taste, we shall not trust our fences, but believe clean contrary. Christ never made no such article of our faith. Our faith teacheth us to believe things that we see not, but it doth not bid us, that we shall not believe that we see daily with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and grope with our hands. For although our senses can not reach so far as our faith doth, yet so far as the compass of our senses doth usually reach, our faith is not contrary to the same, but rather our senses do confirm our faith.