A19563:1942
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.
The doctrine that even now was so simple and plain is now again §1waxed so full of ambiguities and doubts, that learned men in discussing thereof, as they can, be fain to say rather some thing than nothing, and yet were they better to say nothing at all, then to say that is not true, or nothing to purpose. And if the master of the sentences saying in this point, vary from the common doctrine of the other Papists, why is not this his error rejected among other, wherein he is not commonly held? And why do your self after approve the same saying of the Master, as a thing believed without difficulty, that the accidents be stayed without their §2natural substance? And then I would know of you wherein they be stayed? seeing they be not stayed in the air, as in their substance, nor in the bread and wine, nor in the body of Christ? For either you must appoint some other stay for them or else grant (as I say) that they hang alone in the air, without any substance wherein they may be stayed. And either I understand you not in this place (you speak so diffusely) or else that thing §3which the Master spake, and your self have here affirmed, you call it a tolerable conceit fondly uttered. And where as to answer the matter of the staying of the accidents, you ask wherein the light was stayed as the creation §4of the world: this is a very easy opposall, and soon answered unto. For first God created heaven and earth and after made light, which was stayed in them as it is now, although not divided from the darkness in such sort as it was after. Now followeth the third absurdity.
THe doctrine that euen now was so simple and playne is now agayne §1waxed so full of ambiguities and doubtes, that learned men in discussing therof, as they can, be fayne to say rather some thing than nothing, and yet were they better to say nothing at all, then to say that is not true, or nothing to purpose. And if the master of the sentences saying in this poynt, vary from the cōmon doctrine of the other Papists, why is not this his errour reiected among other, wherin he is not commonly helde? And why do your selfe after approue the same saying of the Master, as a thing beleeued without difficultie, that the accidents be stayed without their