A19563:1814
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.
Canterbury.
Caunterbury.
When I have proved most evidently, as well by the testimony of the scripture, as by the consent of the old authors of Christs church both greeks and Latins, from the beginning continually from time to time, that transubstantiation is against gods most holy word, against the old church of Christ, against all experience of our senses, against all reason, and against the doctrine of all ages (until the Bishops of Rome devised the contrary) therefore. I conclude that the said doctrine of Transubstantiation may justly be called the Romish or papistical doctrine. And where I have showed further, that the chief pillars of the papistical doctrine, as Duns, Gabriel, Durand, with other do acknowledge, that if it had not been for the determination of the church of Rome, they would have thought otherwise (which is a most certain argument, that this doctrine of Transubstantiation came from Rome, and therefore is worthily called a papistical doctrine) all this must be answered with these words (as this author reporteth) and Duns and Gabriel boast §1what they could do) whereas neither Duns nor any of the other, either brag or boast, but plainly and frankly declare what they think. And if I report then otherwise then they say, reprove me therefore, and tell me wherein. But these be but shifts to shake of the matter that you cannot answer unto. Therefore until you have made me a more full and direct answer, I am more confirmed in my assertion, to call transubstantiation a papistical doctrine, then I was before.
WHen I haue proued most euidently, as well by the testimony of the scripture, as by the consent of the olde authors of Christes church both greekes and Latines, from the beginning continually from tyme to tyme, that transubstantiation is agaynst gods most holy word, agaynst the olde church of Christ, agaynst all experience of our sences, agaynst all reason, and agaynst the doctrine of all ages (vntill the Bishops of Rome deuised the contrary) therfore. I conclude that the sayd doctrine of Transubstantiation may iustely be called the Romish or papisticall doctrine. And where I haue shewed further, that the chiefe pillers of the papisticall doctrine, as Duns, Gabriell, Durand, with other do acknowledge, that if it had not bene for the determination of the church of Rome, they would haue thought otherwise (which is a most certayne argument, that this doctrine of Transubstantiation came from Rome, and therfore is worthely called a papisticall doctrine) all this must be answered with these wordes (as this author reporteth) and Duns and Gabriell boast