A19563:1570
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.
As in answering to the third chapter, I have showed how reason received into faiths service, doth not strive with Transubstantiation, but agreeth well with it: so I trust to show how mans senses which this author calleth the five wits be no such direct adversaries to Transubstantiation, as a matter whereof they can no skill.1 And therefore to a question this Author asketh in the end of the second column in the 22. leaf which is this. If we believe our senses in the accidents, why may we not do the like of the substance? I answer thus, that the senses can no skill of substance as learned men speak of substance, nor this author neither, if a man should judge him by this question. For and a sensual man one that followeth his rude senses would say, Come hither master scholar, I here much talking in this world of substance and accidence, and if he were of a merry nature, would say his little boy had learned his accidence, but him self woreth not perfectly what substance meaneth, as clerks term it, and bringing forth a piece of bread, an other of cheese, and a pot of ale, would desire the scholar to learn him the substance of them, and show it with his finger, and show him also what difference §2between the substance of bread, cheese, and the ale, I think the scholar with the advice of all at cambridge and Oxford also, could not do it, and the more the scholar should travail with such a rude man so sensual in the matter, I think he should be the further of, oneles the sensual man would set a part his rude wits and learn of the scholar some reasonable understanding, which is that the substance is the inward nature, wherein those that be accidents do naturally stay the quantity immediately, and the rest by mean of quantity, in which the rest may be said to stay, which words were new divinity to this man, who touching the bread would ask the scholar roundly, Callest thou not this substance, this good thick piece that I handle? The scholar would answer, Sir as I shall answer you. You will say I play the sophister, for I must speak learning to you, that you can no skill of.
As in answering to the third chapiter, I haue shewed how reason receaued into faythes seruice, doth not striue with Transubstantiation, but agreeth well with it: so I trust to shew howe mannes sences whych this author calleth the fyue wyttes be no such direct aduersaries to Transubstantiation, as a matter wherof they can no skill.