A19563:1794
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 one thing is principally to be noted in your answer to Theodoret §3how you can sophisticate and falsify all mens sayings, be they never so plain. For where between me and the Papists the matter here in contention is this. Whether the bread and wine remain in their proper nature and substance or no. I saying that they remain, and the Papists saying that they remain not, the Issue being in this point whether they remain, or remain not, I bring for me Chrysostom (who saith, the nature of bread remaineth:) I bring Gelasius, (who saith, that there ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine) I bring this Theodoret, whose words be these: The bread and wine after consecration lose not their proper nature, but keep their former substances, form and figure. Now how can any man devise to speak the truth in more plain words than these be? For they say the very same words that I say. And yet because the truth is not liked, here must be devised a crafty Lawyers gloss, of them that never sought other, but to calumniate the truth, and must be said (against all learning, reason and speech) that substance is taken for the visible and palpable qualities or accidents: well yet then you confess that those old ancient Authors agree with me in words, and say as I do, that the bread and wine be not transubstantiated, but remain in their former substance: And then the issue plainly passeth with me by the testimony of these three witnesses, until such time as you can prove that these authors spake one thing, and meant an other, and that qualities and accidents be substances. And if you understood whereunto §4the argument of Theodoret and Gelasius tendeth, you would not say that they spake against the Eutiches, any more then they do against the Nestorians. For if the bread and wine remain not (as you say) but be ⟨p. 323⟩swallowed up of the body and blood of Christ, then likewise in the principal mystery, either the deity must be swallowed up of the humanity, or the humanity of the deity. The contrary whereof is not only against the Eutychians, but also against the Nestorians, Marcionists, and all other that denied any of his two natures to remain perfectly in Christ.
And one thing is principally to be noted in your answere to Theodoret §3