A19563:1554
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 concerning natural reason, where you say it will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well enough, if the faith of the true presence of Christs very body be true. For answer hereto I say, that if your fantastical belief of the real presence of Christs natural body in the sacrament were as true as the gospel (as none opinion can be more erroneous and fond) yet would both faith and reason judge, that there were still bread. Faith, because holy scripture manifestly saith so: Reason, because it is so, not only to all our senses, but also in all the effects and operations of bread. And reason can not discern, but that Christs body may be as well present with the substance of bread, as with the accidents, and that rather also, forasmuch as you confess your self, that after the rules of nature, quantity filleth the place rather then substance. And so ⟨p. 268⟩may reason judge the body of Christ, to be the body of Christ, and yet the bread to be the bread still, and wine to be wine and no bread, nor none other confusion of natures to be there against reason.
And as concerning naturall reason, where you say it will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well inough, if the fayth of the true presence of Christes very body be true. For aunswere hereto I say, that if your phantasticall belefe of the reall presence of Christes naturall body in the sacrament were as true as the gospell (as none opinion can be more erronious and fond) yet would both fayth and reason iudge, that there were still bread. Fayth, bicause holy scripture manifestly sayth so: Reason, bicause it is so, not onely to all our sences, but also in all the effects and opperations of bread. And reason can not discerne, but that Christes body may be as well present with the substance of bread, as with the accidents, and that rather also, forasmuch as you confesse your selfe, that after the rules of nature, quantity filleth the place rather then substaunce. And so ⟨p. 268⟩may reason iudge the body of Christ, to be the body of Christ, and yet the bread to be the bread still, and wine to be wine and no bread, nor none other confusion of natures to be there agaynst reason.