A19563:1929
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 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.
And where to excuse this absurdity, that accidentes in the sacramental bread should be broken alone without any substaunce, you bring in an other absurdity, that in common bread the substaunce 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 perceiued that he was suspected, by and by, he would make two or three much greater lyes to excuse the first withall. But if you should say, that we break not the substaunce of bread at all, it were no more vnlearnedly said in Philosophy, then it is vntruely sayd in diuinity.
And where you say that you have probable matter for you, and I have none for me, it is clean contrary. For you have utterly nothing for you but all the whole world against you, if you say that the substance of common bread is not broken at all. And I have for me the very plain words of Christ, of the Apostle, & of the Evangelists.1 The bread which we break (saith S. Paul.) And Christ took bread and brake it, say the three Evangelists. But there is no bread (say you) nor no substance of bread is broken. And this probable matter have you for your self, if men will believe your self alone, better then the Apostle and the Evangelists.
And where you say that you haue probable matter for you, and I haue none for me, it is cleane contrary. For you haue vtterly nothing for you but all the whole world agaynst you, if you say that the substaunce of common bread is not broken at all. And I haue for me the very playne wordes of Christ, of the Apostle, & of the Euangelistes.