A19563:1928
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 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.
And here you fall into the same folly,1 that Basill speaketh. For if he that goeth about to seperate accidentes from their substaunce, fayle of his purpose, & end in nothing indeed, then you separating the accidentes of bread from their substaunce, and the substaunce of Christes body from the accidentes, by your owne saying alleadged of Basill, you must fayle of your purpose, & in the end bring both the bread and body of Christ to nothing in deed. For the abstraction of accidentes from their proper substaunces and of substances frō their proper accidentes (as you truely say in that poynt) can not be practised in experience, but is a corruptiō or adnihilatiō of both.
- 1Substances can not be without accidents.Substāces can not be without accidentes.
And where to excuse this absurdity, that accidents in the sacramental bread should be broken alone without any substance, you bring in an other absurdity, that in common bread the substance is not broken at all: this is no taking away of the first absurdity, but of one absurdity to make two, as once I knew a man, that when he had made a lye, and perceived that he was suspected, by and by, he would make two or three much greater lies to excuse the first withal. But if you should say, that we break not the substance of bread at all, it were no more unlearnedly said in Philosophy, then it is untruly said in divinity.