A19563:1559
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 you say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not §7teach, that no earthly thing remaineth, but that the visible form of bread and wine remaineth the same in greatness, in thickness, in weight, in savour, in taste, in property also to corrupt, putrefy, and nourish, as it did before, tell plainly I pray you, what thing it is which you call the visible form of bread and wine, whether it be an accidence or a substance, and if it be an accidence, show whether it be a quantity or quality, or what ⟨p. 269⟩other accidence it is, that all men may understand what thing it is which (as you say) is the same in greatness, thickness, weight, savour, and other properties.
And where you say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not §7teach, that no earthly thing remayneth, but that the visible forme of bread and wine remayneth the same in greatnes, in thicknes, in weight, in sauour, in tast, in property also to corrupt, putrify, and nourish, as it did before, tell playnly I pray you, what thing it is which you call the visible fourme of bread and wine, whether it be an accidence or a substance, and if it be an accidence, shew whether it be a quantity or quality, or what ⟨p. 269⟩other accidence it is, that all men may vnderstand what thing it is which (as you say) is the same in greatnes, thicknes, weight, sauour, and other properties.
And where you allege Emissen for the conversion of the substance of bread and wine,1 this conversion (as Emissene saith, and as I have declared before) is like to our conversion in baptism, where outwardly is no alteration of substance (for no sacramental alteration maketh alteration of the substance) but the marvellous and secret alteration is inwardly in our souls. And as the water in baptism is not changed, but sacramentally (that is to say, made a sacrament of spiritual regeneration, which before was none) so in the lords supper, neither the substance nor accidences of bread and wine be changed, but sacramentally: but the alteration is inwardly in the souls of them that spiritually be refreshed and nourished with Christs flesh and blood. And this our faith teacheth us, and natural reason doth good service to faith herein against your imagined Transubstantiation. So that you have not gotten reasons, good will, nor consent to your vain doctrine of Transubstantiation, although you had proved your real presence. Which hitherto you have not don, but have taken great pain to shoot away all your bolts in vain, missing quite and clean both the prick and the whole butte.