A19563:1572
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.
Wherein this rude man for want of true understanding of the words and perfect consideration of the matter speaketh thus fondly, who if he should thereupon require the scholar to show him some difference of the very substance between bread, cheese, and ale, what could the learned scholar answer here, but even frankly declare his ignorance, and say I know none, which is as much to say, as I know there is a difference, but I wot not what it is. Whereunto I trow the rude man would say to the scholar. Then art thou with all thy learning as very a fool as I, to speak of a difference and can not tell what it is. Now if the scholar should utter even the extremity of his learning in proper terms, and say, I know bread is no cheese, and cheese is no ale, and of their accidental parts I can indeed show differences, but of the very substance none. The rude man if his nature were not over dull, would laugh roundly to hear a scholar utter for a point of learning that bread is no cheese, and cheese is no ale, which who so knoweth not, is a very fool, and merely to knit up the matter would keep the accidents of his bread cheese and all for him self, and give the substance to the scholar if he can divide it, as a reward for his cunning to his better nurture. And this I write after this gross sort, to show that this matter of substance is not commonly understanded as senses exercised in learning perceive it, and how mans outward senses can not as this author would have it, be judges of the inward nature of substance, which reason persuadeth to be, using the service of the senses for induction of the knowledge, in which judgement upon their report happeneth many times much deceit.1 Titus Livius speaketh of a great number of divers dishes of meat made in a solemn supper, whereat the guests wondered to see such a variety at that time of the year, and when they demanded of it, answer was made the substance was but one, all hogs flesh, so as the alteration in the accidents deceived their judgements. That stone, which among many thought to have some skill, hath been taken for a precious §2diamond, hath after by cunning lapidaries been judged to be but a white sapphire, and contrariwise:
Wherin this rude man for want of true vnderstanding of the wordes and perfect consideration of the matter speaketh thus fondly, who if he should therupon require the scholler to shew him some difference of the very substance betwene bread, cheese, and ale, what could the lerned scholler answere here, but euen frankly declare his ignoraunce, and say I know none, which is as much to say, as I know there is a difference, but I wot not what it is. Wherunto I trow the rude man would say to the scholler. Then art thou with all thy lerning as very a foole as I, to speake of a difference and can not tell what it is. Now if the scholler should vtter euen the extremity of his learning in proper termes, and say, I know bread is no cheese, and chese is no ale, and of their accidentall partes I can indede shew differences, but of the very substance none. The rude man if his nature were not ouer dull, would laugh roundly to heare a scholler vtter for a poynt of learning that bread is no cheese, and cheese is no ale, which who so knoweth not, is a very foole, and merely to knit vp the matter would kepe the accidents of his bread chese and all for him selfe, and geue the substance to the scholler if he can deuide it, as a reward for his cunning to his better nurture. And this I write after this grosse sort, to shew that this matter of substance is not commonly vnderstanded as sences exercised in learning perceaue it, and how mans outward sences can not as this author would haue it, be iudges of the inward nature of substance, which reason perswadeth to be, vsing the seruice of the sences for induction of the knowledge, in which iudgement vpon their report hapneth many tymes much deceite.