A19563:1927
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.
Here may the reader perceive how much you sweat and labour, so that it pitieth me to see what travail you take (babbling many things, no thing to the purpose) to answer my first absurdity. And yet at the end, you be enforced to affirm all that I charge you withal, that is to say, that accidents be broken, eaten, drunken, chewed and swallowed without any §1substance at all. And more I need not to say here, then before I have answered to your clerkly dialogue between the scholar and the rude man, saving this, that you make all men so wise, that they judge accidents in their common understanding to be called substances, and that no man is able to know the difference of one substance from an other.
HEre may the reader perceiue how much you sweat and labor, so that it pittieth me to see what trauaile you take (babling many things, no thing to the purpose) to aunswere my first absurditye. And yet at the end, you be enforced to affirme all that I charge you withall, that is to say, that accidentes be broken, eaten, drunken, chawed and swallowed without any §1substaunce at all. And more I need not to say here, then before I haue aunswered to your clarkely dialogue betweene the scholler and the rude man, sauing this, that you make all men so wise, that they iudge accidents in their common vnderstanding to be called substaunces, and that no man is able to know the difference of one substaunce from an other.
And here you fall into the same folly,1 that Basil speaketh. For if he that goeth about to separate accidents from their substance, fail of his purpose, & end in nothing indeed, then you separating the accidents of bread from their substance, and the substance of Christs body from the accidents, by your own saying alleged of Basil, you must fail of your purpose, & in the end bring both the bread and body of Christ to nothing in deed. For the abstraction of accidents from their proper substances and of substances from their proper accidents (as you truly say in that point) can not be practised in experience, but is a corruption or annihilation of both.