A19563:1550
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 as for my reason of vacuum, you have not yet answered thereto, for §2nature suffereth not any place to be without some substance, which by means of his quantity filleth the place. And quantity without substance to fill any place, is so fare from the rulers of nature, that by order of nature, quantity without substance hath neither filling nor being. And although I do not say, that by the doctrine of Transubstantiation there remaineth nothing, (so that all that you speak to answer that matter, is to no purpose, but res vacua) yet by the doctrine of Transubstantiation joined unto nature, there should remain utterly nothing in deed: for substance remaineth none, by your doctrine of Transubstantiation, and without substance can be no accidents by the rules of nature. Therefore comparing your doctrine and nature together, either you must recant your doctrine of Transubstantiation, or confess that nothing remaineth, or at the least grant that your teaching repugneth to the order of nature, which sufficeth for me in this place, where my purpose is only to show, how the doctrine of Transubstantiation is against nature and reason.
And as for my reason of vacuum, you haue not yet answered thereto, for §2nature suffereth not any place to be without some substance, which by meanes of his quantity filleth the place. And quantity without substance to fill any place, is so fare from the rulers of nature, that by order of nature, quantity without substance hath neither filling nor being. And although I do not say, that by the doctrine of Transubstantiation there remayneth nothing, (so that all that you speake to answere that matter, is to no purpose, but res vacua) yet by the doctrine of Transubstantiation ioyned vnto nature, there should remayne vtterly nothing in deede: for substance remayneth none, by your doctrine of Transubstantiation, and without substance can be no accidents by the rules of nature. Therfore comparing your doctrine and nature together, eyther you must recant your doctrine of Transubstantiatiō, or confesse that nothing remayneth, or at the least graunt that your teaching repugneth to the order of nature, which suffiseth for me in this place, where my purpose is onely to shew, how the doctrine of Transubstantiatiō is agaynst nature and reason.