A19563:1921
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.
In the second volume of the 43. leaf, the author goeth about to note 6. absurdities in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which I intend also to peruse. The first is this.
In the second volume of the 43. leafe, the author goeth about to note 6. absurdities in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which I entend also to peruse. The first is this.
First if the Papists be demanded. &c.
First if the Papistes be demaunded. &c.
This is accounted by this author the first absurdity and inconvenience which is by him rhetorically set forth with lips, and mouth, and chawing, not substantial terms §1to the matter, but accidental. For opening of which matter, I will repeat some part again of that I have written before, when I made the scholar answer the rude man in declaration of substance, which is, that albeit that sensible thing which in speech uttered after the capacity of common understanding is called substance, be comprehended of our senses, yet the inward nature of every thing which is in learning properly called substance, is not so distinctly known of us, as we be able to show it to the senses, or by words of difference to distinct in divers kinds of things one substance from an other.1 And herein (as Basil saith) if we should go about by separation of all the accidents to discern the substance by it self alone, we should in the experience fail of our purpose and end in nothing indeed. There is a natural consideration of the abstract §3that can not be practised in experience. And to me if it were asked of common bread, when we break it, whether we break the substance or only the accidents, First I must learnedly say, If the substance be broken, it is by mean of the accident in quantity, and then if it liked me to take my pleasure without learning in philosophy, as this author doth in divinity against the catholic faith, to say in division we break not the substance of bread at all; the heresy in philosophy were not of such absurdity, as this author maintaineth in divinity. For I have some probable matter to say for me, where