A19563:1593
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.
Finally where as I required earnestly, all the Papists to lay their heads together, and to show one article of our faith so directly contrary to our senses, that all our senses by daily experience, shall affirm a thing to be, and yet our faith shall teach us the contrary thereunto, where I say I required this so earnestly of you, and with such circumstances, and you have yet showed none, I may boldly conclude, that you can show none. For sure I am, if you could (being so earnestly provoked thereunto) you would not have failed to show it in this place. As for the article of our resurrection, and of the feeding of angels serve nothing for this purpose. For my saying is of the daily experience of our senses, and when they affirm a thing to be, but the resurrection of our flesh, and the feeding of angels, be neither in daily experience of our senses, nor our senses affirm them not so to be. Now after the matter of our senses followeth in my book the authorities of ancient writers in this wise.
Finally where as I required earnestly, all the Papistes to lay their heades togither, and to shew one article of our fayth so directly contrary to our senses, that all our senses by dayly experience, shall affirme a thing to be, and yet our fayth shall teach vs the contrary therunto, where I say I required this so earnestly of you, and with such circumstances, and you haue yet shewed none, I may boldly conclude, that you can shew none. For sure I am, if you could (being so earnestly prouoked therunto) you would not haue fayled to shew it in this place. As for the article of our resurrection, and of the feeding of angels serue nothing for this purpose. For my saying is of the dayly experience of our senses, and when they affirme a thing to be, but the resurrection of our flesh, and the feeding of angels, be neither in dayly experience of our senses, nor our senses affirme them not so to be. Now after the matter of our senses followeth in my booke the authorities of ancient writers in this wise.
Now for as much as it is declared, how this Papistical opinion of Transubstantiation is against the word of God,1