A19563:1555
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 touching natural operation, in the handling thereof, you show §6your ignorance in natural philosophy, which teacheth that in mutation from one quality to an other, is required one substance to receive both the qualities. For white of it self can not be made black, nor cold hot, but one substance may be now hot now cold, now black now white. As cold water may be made hot although cold in it self can not be hot. Therefore you can not blame me, to think in this a great inconvenience and absurdity in nature, that sweetness of it self should change into sourness, when the substance of wine is gone, and no substance remaining to receive this mutation, this matter being so clean contrary to the precepts and rules of natural philosophy.
And as touching naturall operation, in the handling therof, you shew §6your ignoraunce in naturall philosophy, which teacheth that in mutation from one quality to an other, is required one substance to receaue both the qualities. For white of it selfe can not be made blacke, nor colde hotte, but one substance may be now hote now colde, now blacke now white. As cold water may be made hote although colde in it selfe can not be hote. Therfore you can not blame me, to thinke in this a great inconuenience and absurdity in nature, that swetenes of it selfe should change into sowernes, when the substance of wine is gone, and no substance remayning to receaue this mutation, this matter being so cleane contrary to the precepts and rules of naturall philosophy.
1And I marvel that you can not see how much Ulpian whom you allege, maketh against your self, and with my saying, that both in wine and vinegar remaineth substance, which is changed from sweet to sower, so that the sweet of it self is not made sower, but that substance which before was sweet, is after sower. And therefore what great skill you have in citing of Ulpian, to prove that the accidents of wine without substance do sower and wax vinegar, let the wise reader judge.