A19563:1757
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 not in this place only, but throughout your whole book you use this fashion, that when you can not answer to the principal matter, then you find fault with some bye matter, whereby it seemeth you intend so to occupy the Readers mind, that he should not see how craftily you convey your self, from direct answering of the chief point of the Argument, which when you come unto, you pass it over slenderly, answering either nothing, or very little, & nothing to the purpose.
And not in this place onely, but throughout your whole booke you vse this fashiō, that when you cā not aunswere to the principall matter, thē you finde fault with some bye matter, wherby it seemeth you intend so to occupy the Readers mynde, that he should not see how craftely you cōuey your selfe, frō direct aūsweryng of the chief poynt of the Argumēt, which when you come vnto, you passe it ouer slenderly, aūsweryng either nothyng, or very litle, & nothyng to the purpose.
But yet this bye matter (which you bring in of the grossness of these two errors) helpeth little your intent, but rather helpeth to fortify my saying against your doctrine of transubstantiation, that your doctrine herein maketh a plain way for the Nestorians & the Eutychians to defend their errors. For if the bread and the body of Christ before the consecration in the Sacrament be two natures, and after the consecration in that mystery is but one nature, and that is the body of Christ, into which the nature of bread in your fantasy is transformed and confounded, and if also this mystery be an example of the mystery of Christs incarnation (as the old authors report) why may not then the Eutychians say, that before the adunation in the virgins womb, the Godhead & manhood were two natures, & yet after the adunation in that mystery of Christs incarnation, there was but one nature, and that to be the nature of God, into which the nature of man was after their fantasy transfused and confounded? And thus have you made by your transubstantiation a goodly pattern and example for the Eutychians to follow in maintenance of their error.