A19563:1913
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 yet this is not to be passed over, but to be noted by the way, how plainly S. Ambrose speaketh against the Papists, which say, that the body and blood of Christ remain sub speciebus panis & vini, under the forms of bread and wine. And S. Ambrose saith, that species elementorum mut antur, the forms of bread and wine be changed.
And yet this is not to be passed ouer, but to be noted by the way, how playnly S. Ambrose speaketh agaynst the Papistes, which say, that the body and bloud of Christ remayne sub speciebus panis & vini, vnder ye formes of bread and wine. And S. Ambrose sayth, that species elementorum mut antur, the formes of bread and wine be changed.
And where you say, that in the examples of mutation brought in by §7S. Ambrose, although the substance remain still the same, yet that skilleth not: your answer here seemeth very strange, to say that that thing skilleth not, which skilleth all together, and maketh the whole matter. For if in the examples the substances remain, notwithstanding the mutation of the natures by benediction, then do not these examples prove, that the substance of bread and wine remain not. And if this were singular from the examples (as you say it is) then were not the other examples of this. For if the substances remain in them, how can they be brought for examples to prove that the substances of bread and wine remain not? when they be brought for examples, and things that be like, and not that the one should be singular, and unlike from the other. And where you allege this place of S. Ambrose for you, nothing can be spoken more directly against you. For the natures (saith S. Ambrose) of bread and wine, be changed. And the nature (say you) is the outward visible forms, and that that is changed remaineth not (say you also) and so followeth then, that the substances of bread and wine remain, and not the outward visible forms, which is directly against your feigned Transubstantiation, and against all that you said hitherto concerning that matter.