A19563:1504
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 where as in fortification of your matter of Transubstantiation, you make your argument thus, That forasmuch as the body of Christ is ⟨p. 253⟩§7really in the sacrament, there is of necessity Transubstantiation also.1 This your argument hath two great faults in it. The first is, that your antecedent is false, and then you can not conclude thereof a true consequent. The second fault is, that although the antecedent were granted unto you, that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament, yet the consequent can not be inferred thereof, that there is of necessity Transubstantiation. For Christ can make his body to be present in the Sacrament, as well with the substance of the bread, as without it, and rather with the substance of bread then with the accidents: forasmuch as neither Christs body there occupieth any place, (as you say yourself) nor no more doth the substance of bread by it self, but by means of the accidents, as you say also.
And where as in fortification of your matter of Transubstantiation, you make your argument thus, That forasmuch as the body of Christ is ⟨p. 253⟩§7really in the sacrament, there is of necessity Transubstantiatiō also.1 This your argument hath two great faultes in it. The first is, that your antecedent is false, and then you can not conclude therof a true consequent. The second fault is, that although the autecedent were graunted vnto you, that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament, yet the consequent can not be inferred therof, that there is of necessity Transubstantiation. For Christ can make his body to be present in the Sacrament, as well with the substance of the bread, as without it, and rather with the substance of bread then with the accidents: forasmuch as neyther Christes body there occupieth any place, (as you say yourselfe) nor no more doth the substance of bread by it selfe, but by meanes of the accidentes, as you say also.
- 1