A19563:576
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 this your saying here (if the reader mark it well) turneth over quite and clean all the whole Papistical doctrine in this matter of the Sacrament,1 as well touching transubstantiation, as also the carnal presence. For their doctrine with one whole consent and agreement is this. That the substance of bread remaineth not, but is turned into the substance of Christs §4body, and so the body of Christ is made of it. But this is false (say you) and not tolerable to be by a scoffer devised in a place, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part. And so the whole doctrine of the papists, which they have taught these 4. or 5. hundred years, do you condemn with condigne reproaches, as a teaching intolerable, not to be devised by a scoffer in a play. Why do you then take upon you to defend the Papistical doctrine, if it be so intolerable? Why do you not forsake those scoffers and players, which have juggled with the world so long, and embrace the most certain truth, that Christs body is not made of bread? And seeing that you embrace it here in this one place, why stand you not constantly therein but go from it again in all the rest of your book, defending the Papistical doctrine clean contrary to yours in this point, in that they teach that Christs body is made of bread.
And this your saying here (if the reader mark it wel) turneth ouer quite and cleane all the wholl Papisticall doctrine in this matter of the Sacrament,1 as well touching transubstantiation, as also the carnall presence. For their doctrine with one whol consent and agreement is this. That the substance of bread remaineth not, but is turned into the substance of Christes §4body, and so the body of Christ is made of it. But this is false (say you) and not tollerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a place, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part. And so the wholl doctrine of the papists, which they haue taught these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares, doe you condemne with condigne reproches, as a teaching intollerable, not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play. Why doe you then take vpon you to defend the Papistical doctrine, if it be so intollerable? Why doe you not forsake those scoffers and players, which haue iugled with the world so long, and embrace the most certayne truth, that Christs body is not made of bread? And seeing that you embrace it here in this one place, why stand you not constantly therin but goe from it againe in all the rest of your booke, defending the Papisticall doctrine cleane contrary to yours in this pointe, in that they teach that Christes body is made of bread.