A19563:1846
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.
Where in my former book I found a fault in the allegation of Cyprian it was in deed no little fault, to allege those words that speak §1of the change of bread, and to leave out the example most necessary to be rehearsed, which should declare how it was changed, which change is not by Transubstantiation (as the example showeth) but as it is in the person of Christ, whose humanity was not transubstantiate, although it was inseparably annexed unto the deity.
WHere in my former booke I found a fault in the allegation of Ciprian it was in deede no little fault, to alleadge those wordes that speake §1of the change of bread, and to leaue out the example most necessary to be rehersed, which should declare how it was changed, which change is not by Transubstantiation (as the example sheweth) but as it is in the person of Christ, whose humanity was not transubstantiate, although it was inseparabely annexed vnto the deity.
And the words following do not once touch the real and corporal presence of Christs flesh in the bread, so far it is from the overthrowing of the true catholic faith by me taught. But Cyprian in that place quite and clean overthroweth, as well your real presence, as your imagined transubstantiation, as hereafter by Gods grace shall be declared. But first it seemeth to me a strange thing, that such a learned man as you take your