A19563:1582
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.
But as you speak of substances and accidents against scripture, §5sense, reason, experience and all learning, so do you also speak manifestly against your self. For you say that every thing that is, must have a substance wherein it is staid, and that every natural visible thing is of two parts, of substance and accidents, and yet by your Transubstantiation, you leave no substance at all, to stay the accidents of the bread and wine.
But as you speake of substances and accidentes agaynst scripture, §5sense, reason, experience and all learning, so doe you also speake manifestly agaynst your selfe. For you say that euery thing that is, must haue a substance wherein it is stayde, and that euery naturall visible thing is of two partes, of substance and accidentes, and yet by your Transubstantiation, you leaue no substance at all, to stay the accidentes of the bread and wine.
And moreover this is a marvellous teaching of you, to say that the accidents of bread be one part of bread, and be called the outward kind of bread,1 the sensible part of bread, the nature and matter of bread, and very bread. Was there ever any such learning taught before this day, that accidents should be called parts of substances, the nature of substances; and the matter of substances, and the very substances ⟨p. 276⟩themselves? If ever any man so wrote, tell who it is, or else knowledge the truth, that all these matters be invented by your own imagination whereof the rude man may right well say: Here is sophistry in deed and plain juggling. But you convey not your juggling so craftily, but that you be taken, (as the Greeks term it) [Greek or Hebrew], even with the manner.