A19563:1932
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 you grant that accidents to be without substance, is against the common course of natural things, but it is done by a spiritual miracle, this is but a cloud to darken the light. For accidents to be without ⟨p. 350⟩substances, is not only against the common course of natural things, but also against the very nature of accidents (which have none other being, but in substances as they be defyned, accidentis esse, estinesse) and is also against all philosophy, reason and working of god sithens the world began. For God never created nor made (with miracle nor without miracle) substances without accidents, nor accidents without substances, as some vaynely phantasy de materia prima. It is against also the doctrine of the old catholic authors, for never none wrote that accidents were without substances, until the Bishop of Rome with his Monks and Fryers defined the contrary.
And where you graunt that accidentes to be without substaunce, is agaynst the common course of naturall thinges, but it is done by a spiritual miracle, this is but a cloud to darken the light. For accidents to be without ⟨p. 350⟩substaunces, is not onely agaynst the cōmon course of natural things, but also against the very nature of accidentes (which haue none other being, but in substaunces as they be defyned, accidentis esse, estinesse) and is also against all philosophy, reason and working of god sithens the world begā. For God neuer created nor made (with miracle nor without miracle) substaunces without accidentes, nor accidents without substaunces, as some vaynely phantasy de materia prima. It is agaynst also the doctrine of the old catholicke authors, for neuer none wrote that accidentes were without substaunces, vntill the Bishop of Rome with his Monkes and Fryers defyned the contrary.
But note well here good reader the end of wit, when it is not staid by §7