A19563:1565
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 what a wide door is here opened to Valentinianus, Martion, and other heretics, which said, that Christ was not crucified, but that Simon Cireneus was crucified for him, although to the sight of the people, it seemed that Christ was crucified, Or to such heretics as said, that Christ was no man, although to mens sights he appeared in the form of man, and seemed to be hungry, dry, weary, to weep, sleep, eat, drink, yea and to dye like as other men do. For if we once admit this doctrine, that no credit is to be given to our senses, we open a large field, and give a great occasion unto an innumerable rabblement of most heinous heresies.
And what a wide doore is here opened to Valentinianus, Martion, and other heretikes, which sayd, that Christ was not crucified, but that Simon Cireneus was crucified for him, although to the sight of the people, it semed that Christ was crucified, Or to such heretikes as sayd, that Christ was no man, although to mens sightes he appeared in the forme of man, and semed to be hungry, drie, weary, to wepe, sleepe, eate, drincke, yea and to dye like as other men do. For if we once admitte this doctrine, that no credite is to be geuen to our senses, we open a large field, and geue a greate occasion vnto an innumerable rablement of most heinous heresies.
And if there be no trust to be given to our senses in this matter of the sacrament, why then do the Papists so stoutly affirm, that the accidents remain after the consecration, which can not be judged but by the senses? For the scripture speaketh no word of the accidents of bread & wine but of the bread & wine themselves. And it is against the nature & definition of accidents, to be alone without any substance. Wherefore if we may not trust our senses in this matter of the sacrament, than if the substance of the bread & wine be gone, why may we not then say, that the accidents be gone also? And if we must needs believe our senses, as concerning the accidents of bread and wine, why may we not do the like of the substance, and that rather than of the accidents: forasmuch as after the consecration, the Scripture saith in no place that there is no substance of bread nor of wine, but calleth them still by such names as signify the substances, and not the accidents?