A19563:1576
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.
Canterbury.
Caunterbury.
AS in your answer to the iii. chapter of my book you have done §1nothing but dallied and trifled, even so do you likewise in the iiii. Chapter, and yet far more unseemly then in the third. For doth it become a christen Bishop, of a matter of religion and a principal article of our faith to make a matter of bread and cheese? And of the holy supper of the Lord to make a resemblance of a dinner of hogs flesh? And yet for persuasion of your purpose, you make (as it were) a play in a dialogue, between a rude man and a learned scholar,1 wherein the matter is so learnedly handled that the simple rude man showeth himself to have more knowledge, then both you and your learned scholar. And why you should bring in this matter I know not, except it be to show your ignorance, to be as great in logic and philosophy,2 as it is in divinity. For what an ignorance is this, to say that a man can know no difference between one substance and an other, and that substances be not judged by any senses? And that all natural things be of these .ii. parts, of substances and accidents: and that their accidents be part of their substances, and be called their substances, their natures, and matters? Was there ever any such learning uttered before this time? May not all men now evidently perceive, unto what a straight your error hath driven you, that you have none other defence, but to fly to such absurdities, as be against the judgement of the whole world? Would you make men believe, that they know not the substance of the bread from drink, nor of chalk from cheese? Would you lead the world into this error, that Christ was never indeed seen, heard nor felt, when he walked here with his apostles? Did he not prove the truth of his very flesh and bones by sight? saying, A spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have?3